Opinion ID: 812235
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Jurisdictional Defect

Text: Sellers argued that the Kansas District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed action because the Eastern District had ruled in Sheldon II that Sellers’ contract claim against Melo did not meet the required amount in controversy and hence there was no federal diversity jurisdiction over the claim. Sellers argued -6- that if the Kansas District Court lacked jurisdiction over the claim against Melo, the case could not be removed to federal court. Sellers reurge this argument on appeal. To be sure, jurisdictional rulings can have preclusive effect, in that “dismissals for lack of jurisdiction preclude relitigation of the issues determined in ruling on the jurisdiction question.” Park Lane Res. L.L.C. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 378 F.3d 1132, 1136 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). But even if the Kansas District Court lacked jurisdiction over the contract claim against Melo,6 the other claims could still be removed. The removal statute authorizes the removal from state court of “any civil action . . . of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[A] district court has original jurisdiction of a civil action for purposes of § 1441(a) as long as it has original jurisdiction over a subset of the claims constituting the action.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005). Thus, even if there are claims in the action over which the Kansas District Court lacks original jurisdiction because they fall short of the required amount in controversy, the entire action can be removed to federal court under §1441(a) so long as the Kansas District Court has 6 Perhaps the Eastern District’s ruling that Sellers’ contract claim against Melo did not meet the required amount in controversy would have precluded relitigation of that issue in Sheldon III at the time it was removed to federal court. But the preclusive effect of the Eastern District’s jurisdictional ruling was lost when the Second Circuit resolved the appeal from the Eastern District’s judgment without affirming that ruling. See Sheldon v. Khanal, 396 F. App’x 737, 739-40 (2d Cir. 2010); 18A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 4432, at 63-64 & n.24 (2d ed.). -7- original jurisdiction over one claim. That the court may not have original jurisdiction over all the claims “is of no moment.” Id. at 559. There may be a question whether the federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims; but Sellers do not raise such a challenge.