Source: http://federalcivilpracticebulletin.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2015-09-03 10:47:41
Document Index: 634658683

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', 'art, 538', '§ 1201', '§ 3730']

Federal Civil Practice Bulletin: September 2006
Fourth Circuit Finds District Court’s Decision Remand to State Court for Lack of SMJ Not Reviewable in Iraq Contractor Case
BNA’s United States Law Week reported in Vol. 75, No. 11 (Sept. 26, 2006) on the case In Re Blackwater Consulting LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 2439755 (4th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006). Here is an excerpt from the case:The district court's remand order in this case clearly falls within the ambit of § 1447(c)'s requirement of remand in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. The court first concluded that the DBA [Defense Base Act] did not completely preempt overlapping state law and thus did not create a federal question. Nordan, 382 F.Supp.2d at 807-11. It then reasoned that Blackwater's assertion of a unique federal interest in the adjudication of Nordan's claims likewise did not confer federal removal jurisdiction. Id. at 811-13. The district court cited the untenability of these two suggested jurisdictional bases as the source of its decision to remand the case. "[T]his court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action.... [W]here the court finds no basis for subject matter jurisdiction, § 1447(c) compels the court to remand this action to state court.... Accordingly ... remand, rather than dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is proper." Id. at 813-14.To conclude that the remand order was issued pursuant to § 1447(c), we need not delve into whether the district court was correct to hold that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action. Rather, an order is issued pursuant to section § 1447(c) if the district court perceived that it was without jurisdiction over the cause. See, e.g., Mangold, 77 F.3d at 1450 (holding that courts must "look past contextually ambiguous allusions and even specific citations to § 1447(c) to determine by independent review of the record the actual grounds or basis upon which the district court considered it was empowered to remand"). Furthermore, as we have noted, § 1447(d)'s jurisdictional bar applies with equal force to unassailably correct and "manifestly, inarguably erroneous" orders of remand. Id. Because the reasoning behind the district court's remand order in this case indicates the court's belief that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction upon removal, we conclude that the remand order was issued pursuant to § 1447(c) and, consequently, that § 1447(d) prohibits our review of that order.BNA subscribers may read the U.S. Law Week report by clicking here.
posted by A. Benjamin Spencer @ 4:51 AM 0 comments
SCOTUS Grants Cert. in Forum Non Conveniens Case
The Supreme Court has granted review in Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., No. 06-102, a case that will resolve whether a district court must first conclusively establish jurisdiction before dismissing a suit on the ground of forum non conveniens.The ruling below was from the Third Circuit, Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp. v. Sinochem Intern. Co. Ltd., 436 F.3d 349. There, the court recognized a circuit split on the matter:Courts of Appeals have split on the issue. Compare In re Arbitration Between Monegasque de Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F.3d 488, 497-98 (2d Cir.2002) (holding that courts may pass over jurisdictional questions and decide a forum non conveniens issue), and In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 255-56 (D.C.Cir.1998) (same), superseded by statute on other grounds, with Dominguez-Cota v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 396 F.3d 650, 654 (5th Cir.2005) (per curiam ) (holding that they may not). These are the three cases most often referred to, but the Seventh and the Ninth Circuits have also reached the same result as the Fifth Circuit's Dominguez-Cota opinion. See Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.2001), aff'd in part, cert. dismissed in part, 538 U.S. 468, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003); Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799 (7th Cir.1997). The Third Circuit's position was that yes, jurisdictional questions had to be resolved before a court could get to the forum non conveniens issue.The petition for certiorari was filed this past July by Gregory A. Castanias, Victoria Dorfman (a law school classmate of mine), and Jones Day, all of Washington, D.C., and Stephen M. Hudspeth, of Wilton, Conn., who handled the case before the Third Circuit.
posted by A. Benjamin Spencer @ 5:41 AM 1 comments
Per Blueport Co., LLP, v. U.S., 71 Fed.Cl. 768 (Fed. Cl. Jun. 29, 2006):Per Blueport Co., LLP, v. U.S., 71 Fed.Cl. 768 (Fed. Cl. Jun. 29, 2006):The sole issue arising out of this motion, one of first impression, is whether the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to adjudicate Count II of the Complaint--a claim for monetary damages against the United States arising under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. ("DMCA"). Defendant argues that its motion should be granted because the DMCA does not expressly waive sovereign immunity. The court agrees.. . .[T]he general rule is when jurisdiction is explicitly conferred on a designated court, such as here to the "district courts," such designation bars other courts from entertaining claims under that statute. See LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1030 (Fed.Cir.1995) (language in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), which states: "An employee may bring an action in the appropriate district court of the United States for the relief provided in this subsection," does not provide for jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims).. . .The text of a statutory jurisdictional or remedy provision mentioning only the "district courts" is therefore all that is required to exclude this court's jurisdiction. . . . Accordingly, this court must conclude that the DMCA does not contain a clear statement waiving sovereign immunity which is necessary for plaintiff to have jurisdiction in this court.
UCLA Law Review Publishes Symposium Issue on Emerging Issues in Class Action Law
The UCLA Law Review has published its August 2006 Symposium issue on Emerging Issues in Class Action Law. This symposium issue features the following contributions from these leading scholars:Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller, INCENTIVE AWARDS TO CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY, 53 UCLALR 1303Samuel Issacharoff & Catherine M. Sharkey, BACKDOOR FEDERALIZATION, 53 UCLALR 1353William B. Rubenstein, THE FAIRNESS HEARING: ADVERSARIAL AND REGULATORY APPROACHES, 53 UCLALR 1435Richard A. Nagereda, RESTITUTION, RENT EXTRACTION, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES: IMPLICATIONS OF INCENTIVE AWARDS, 53 UCL