Opinion ID: 584473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 12 A potential problem with jurisdiction warrants a brief discussion. TDS presumably dismissed its federal claims, without prejudice, in order to obtain immediate review of the district court's decision dismissing the two tortious interference claims. By doing so, however, TDS could remain in court only by relying on either diversity jurisdiction or the court's continued exercise of pendent jurisdiction. It is possible that diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case. While TDS has satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the District of Columbia has a door closing statute under which a foreign corporation doing business in the District may not bring an action in any court in the District unless it has obtained a certificate of authority to do business in the District. See D.C. CODE ANN. § 29-399.20 (1991). A federal court, sitting in diversity in the District, must apply the District's door closing statute. See ILC Corp. v. Latino Newspaper, Inc., 747 F.Supp. 85, 87 (D.D.C.1990) (citing Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U.S. 535, 69 S.Ct. 1235, 93 L.Ed. 1524 (1949) ). 13 At oral argument, the court asked counsel for TDS whether the company had a certificate of authority to do business in the District and counsel responded that TDS did possess one. But after oral argument it became clear that TDS did not hold a certificate of authority. Appellant has now obtained a certificate, effective January 10, 1992. It remains unclear, however, whether TDS was, in fact, doing business in the District before that date. If TDS was doing business in the District without a certificate, then the failure to comply with the District's door closing statute would have prevented the exercise of diversity jurisdiction when TDS voluntarily dismissed its federal claims. See FW/PBS Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S.Ct. 596, 607-08, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (appellate court can notice jurisdictional defect even though not raised in court below) And, in that case, this court might prevent TDS's end run around the final judgment rule by refusing to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining nonfederal claims. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, [296 U.S.App.D.C. 180] 619 n. 7, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988) (when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine ... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims). But because it is unclear whether TDS did business in the District, and because Amcell did not raise the issue, we simply note the jurisdictional problem that the voluntary dismissal of the federal claims may have caused. The district court should evaluate any jurisdictional problems on remand.