Document: 519 U.S. 61117 S.Ct. 467136 L.Ed.2d 437 CATERPILLAR INC., Petitioner,v.James David LEWIS. No. 95-1263. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 12, 1996. Decided Dec. 10, Syllabus * Respondent Lewis, a Kentucky resident, commenced this civil action in state court after sustaining personal injuries while operating bulldozer. Asserting state-law claims, Lewis named as defendants both manufacturer bulldozer-petitioner Caterpillar Inc., Delaware corporation with its principal place business Illinois-and company that serviced bulldozer-Whayne Supply Company, Kentucky. Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Massachusetts State, intervened plaintiff, asserting subrogation claims against and Whayne for workers' compensation benefits had paid to on behalf his employer. Shortly learning settlement agreement between Supply, filed notice removal Federal District Court, grounding federal jurisdiction diversity citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The explained case was nonremovable at lawsuit's start: Complete absent then because plaintiff defendant shared citizenship. assumed these two parties would result Supply's dismissal from lawsuit, yielding complete rendering removable. promptly moved remand court, defeated by continuing presence due Mutual's claim it. denied motion, erroneously concluding become complete. Before trial, however, settled, dismissed party. thereafter existed. proceeded jury verdict, judgment Caterpillar. Sixth Circuit vacated judgment, that, time removal, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Held: A district court's error failing improperly removed is not fatal ensuing adjudication if jurisdictional requirements are met tim e entered. Pp. ___-___. (a) general-diversity statute, 1332(a), authorizes over cases which citizenship each diverse defendant. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 185, 187, 110 1015, 1017, 108 157. When files state-court courts have original based or may remove 1441(a), provided no ''is citizen State such brought,'' 1441(b). In originally removable who receives pleading other paper indicating post-commencement satisfaction requirements-e.g., reason nondiverse party's dismissal-may within 30 days. 1446(b). No case, be ''more than 1 year commencement action.'' Ibid. Once has objecting ''on basis any defect procedure'' may, days, file motion court. 1447(c). This 30-day limit does apply, defects: ''If before final it appears lacks subject matter jurisdiction, shall remanded.'' (b) American Fire & Casualty Co. Finn, 341 6, 71 534, 95 L.Ed. 702, Grubbs General Elec. Credit Corp., 405 699, 92 1344, 31 612, key point tend Caterpillar's favor. Each suggests existence shield later attack despite an improper removal. U.S., 16, S.Ct., 541; Grubbs, 700, 1346. However, neither decision resolves dispositively controversy kind here issue, involved promptly, but unsuccessfully, challenged appeal entered (c) Beyond question, acknowledges, became when formally Nevertheless, moves too quickly claiming elimination trial also cured statutory flaw-Caterpillar's failure meet 1441(a) requirement fit petition filed. By timely moving remand, did all necessary preserve objection An order denying ''standing alone,'' ''obviously . [immediately] appealable'' right, Chicago, R.I. P.R. Stude, 346 574, 578, 74 290, 293, 98 317, required take interlocutory pursuant 1292(b) avoid waiving whatever ultimate right he have. Having preserved objection, urges ought swallow up antecedent violations. Lewis' arguments support position hardly meritless, they run overriding consideration. been tried rules supplied law under regime Erie R. Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188, considerations finality, efficiency, economy overwhelming. Cf., e.g., Newman-Green, Inc. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 826, 836, 109 2218, 2224-2225, 104 893. view harmony main theme scheme devised Congress, w hich calls expeditious superintendence courts. lingered through Court. To wipe out post-judgment, return now satisfying requirements, impose exorbitant cost our dual system, incompatible fair unprotracted administration justice. (d) prediction rejection will provide enormous incentive attempt unlawful removals rests assumption indulge-that generally comprehend, balk applying, Congress prescribed. furthermore assumes defendants' readiness gamble defect, example, absence diversity, first escape detection, disappear prior judgment. satisfied well-advised foresee likely outcome unwarranted removal-a swift, nonreviewable order, §§1447(c), (d), attended displeasure whose authority invoked. P. ___. Reversed remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion unanimous Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, DC, petitioner. Leonard J. Stayton, Inez, KY, respondent. Justice GINSBURG involves injury arising law. when, Appeals concluded, exist among parties. Promptly motion. involving were party action. removing 2 question presented whether adjudication. We hold 3 James resident Kentucky, lawsuit June 22, 1989, defective manufacture, negligent maintenance, warn, breach warranty, 4 Several months later, insurance carrier employer, plaintiff. asserted 5 into less filing complaint. agreement, 21, 1990, Eastern Grounding 1332, Cat erpillar only day spare diversity-based one commencement, App. 31. Proceeding understanding stated rendered Id., 31-32. 6 objected acknowledged settled own Supply. But yet asserted. urged, 36. Without addressing argument, September 24, treating dispositive admission 55. 7 Discovery, begun continued pretrial conference papers beginning July 1991. 1993, claim, lawsuit. With sole adverse Lewis,1 6-day November ending verdict 23, new February 1, 1994. 8 On appeal, accepted argument remained ag ainst Pet. Cert. 8a. Because lineup, included observed took 8a-9a. Consequently, ''erred [Lewis'] lack jurisdiction.'' 9a. That error, according Appeals, made vacate Court's Ibid.2 9 petitioned review. stressed defendant, trial. It therefore improper, judgment-entered several years litigation trial-on account cured, agreed, 8. granted certiorari, 517 ----, 116 1415, 134 541 (1996), reverse. II 10 Constitution provides, Article III, 2, ''[t]he judicial Power [of States] extend Controversies Citizens different States.'' Commencing Judiciary Act 1789, ch. 20, 11, Stat. 78, constantly authorized exercise Strawbridge Curtiss, Cranch 267, 435 (1806), construed Act's provision require 267. adhered interpretation ever since. 157 (1990). current permitting suits more $50,000 ''between citizens States,'' thus applies defendant.3 11 1441(b).4 removable, requirements-for party-may days receiving information. Ibid.5 12 asking Ibid.6 III 13 note, initially, ''givens'' we First, incorrectly treated effectively dropped Second, correctly determined 8a-9a.7 accordingly home question: Does initial misjudgment still burden overcome eventual defendant? 14 Petitioner relies heavily decisions 702 (1951), 612 (1972), urging ''long ago proposition unnecessary even juri sdiction so long judgment.'' Brief 8-9. Finn attack. face, 15 7-8, 537. Eventually, defendants. 8, losing urged could stand requisite turned out, existed nor Agreeing held 17-18, 541-542.8 16 Finn's holding speak situation here, where points well-known dicta helpful cause. ''There cases,'' observed, ''which uphold judgments though there removal.'' 541.9 ''In those explained, ''the brought posture actual cause entry 17 discussion concentrated estopped challenging errors. id., 17, 541. address chose forum 18 States, ''cross-action'' 700-701, 1346-1347; 1444 (authorizing actions 2410, respect property Un ited lien). 701, 1347. nonetheless held, ''interpleader'' spurious, 1444. basis, concluded should remanded ibid. 19 reversed. explained: 20 ''Longstanding make clear merits without enters issue subsequent proceedings properly removed, court.'' 21 ''whether ''Under circumstances,'' validity procedure followed raised appeal. '' (emphasis added). instructs erroneous need destruction dealt objection. objects successfully challenge ground comply prescriptions. 22 18-19 (diversity ''when latter case''). become, essentially, two-party lawsuit: plaintiff; Caterpillar, incorporated Illinois, confronted. maintains change threshold misstep, i.e., incomplete. 7, 13. 23 terrain must cover. established commenced. Therefore, erred resting filed-remained unerasable history case. 24 And ''[o]bviously right. 317 (1954). Nor seek permission 1292(b)10 have.11 Indeed, invoke ruling, litigants obliged certifications constantly. Routine resort requests comport Congress' design reserve review 'exceptional' retaining firm rule. Coopers Lybrand Livesay, 463, 475, 2454, 2461, 57 351 (1978) (quoting Fisons, Ltd. 458 F.2d 1241, 1248 (C.A.7), cert. denied, 1041, 1312, 581 (1972)). 25 ''all's well ends well'' approach inappropriate here. He course advocates, observes, disfavor diligent plaintiffs timely, move check Further, allow profit their disregard instructions, ability lead judges error. 26 Concretely, very emphasizes, adherence prescribed kept Only prematurely able get inside 1-year limitation set 1446(b).12 Had waited until ripe barred way,13 plaintiff's choice preserved.14 27 These 1188 (1938), Our L .Ed.2d 893 (1989), instructive regard. Newman-Green involve courts' presence, like blocked diversity. summary flaw-the diversity-undetected. 828-829, 2220-2221. noticed flaw, invited it, and, en banc, returned ''to determine prudent drop [the spoiler] litigation.'' 830, 2221. itself dismiss dispensable party,'' although recognized ordinarily, better positioned judgments. 837-838, 2225-2226. ''[R]equiring litigation,'' ''would wasteful burdens parties, judges, waiting attention.'' 2225. same said seeks Cf. Knop McMahan, 872 1132, 1139, n. (C.A.3 1989) (''To permit throughout proceed cancel effect relegate brief waste resources.''). 29 devised. ordered calling lawmakers specified short time, motions defects procedure, 1447(c), orders remanding ''not reviewable otherwise,'' 1447(d). similarly exclude appellate refusals remand. evident concern explain symmetry relates Despite denial if, end remains uncured, vacated. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (''Whenever suggestion otherwise matter, action.''); 18, 542. ultimately argues him allowed stand, ''all various procedural unenforceable''; therefore, ''defendants wrongful removals.'' 9. particular, ''in hope some developments, defendants, th[e] 21. do anticipate dire consequences forecasts. remain enforceable whom directly addressed. ''encourag[e] improperly,'' 19, applying , satisfied, odds gain sum, render improbable projection increased maneuver. 32 *** 33 For reasons stated, reversed, consistent opinion. 34 ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. accord 1367 Rules Civil Procedure, impleaded Gene Wilson Enterprises, corporation, third-party 2. far record shows, solely 5. dispute ran complaint Enterprises bearing adjudicate See, Wichita Railroad Light Public Util. Comm'n Kan., 260 48, 54, 43 51, 53, 67 124 (1922) (federal once acquired unaffected intervention ''of essential parties''). As elaborated Moore, Moore's Practice %57 14.26, p. 14-116 (2d ed.1996) (footnotes omitted): ''Once underlying [plaintiff] [defendant], propriety additional assessed individually. Thus, assuming upon concerning impleader [defendant] [third-party defendant]. fact defendant] co-citizens completely irrelevant. Unless chooses amend assert defendant], simply adverse, them.'' reach issues 2a, 9a, 3. ''complete diversity'' construction. ''Article poses obstacle legislative extension founded co-citizens.'' Farm Tashire, 386 523, 531, 87 1199, 1204, 270 (1967). relevant part, 1441 provides:FC21W''(a) Except expressly division embracing pending. purposes chapter, sued fictitious names disregarded.FC21W''(b) Any Constitution, treaties laws regard residence none interest joined served brought.'' full, 1446(b) provides:FC21W''The proceeding thirty receipt service otherwise, copy setting forth relief based, summons whichever period shorter. amended pleading, ascertained except conferred section 1332 title 1447(c) provides:FC21W''A 1446(a). If thereupon case.'' certiorari Mutual, disregarded determining agreed i, 18-23. granting encompass express left open whether, ''a [could] old trial'' 542, 18. litigation's second round, 207 113, 114 (C.A.5 1953), 347 912, 476, 1069 Thereafter, Ultimately, Fifth aside reinstated. 117. cited Baggs Martin, 179 206, 109, 45 155 (1900), three lower cases. 14, 541, 14. Section provides appeals immediately appealable orders, conditions met, certifies, exercises discretion request brief, argued ''Lewis waived immediate refusal remand.'' reject waiver recognize attracted opinions. Able Upjohn 829 1330, 1333-1334 (C.A.4 1987), 485 963, 1229, 99 429 (1988). 1988 include ''reduc[e] opportunity substantial progress H.R.Rep. 100-889, 72, U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 5982, 6032. refer Tr. Oral Arg. 30-31. Under 15.2, nonjurisdictional respondent's opposition writ ''may deemed waived.'' facts implications 1446(b)'s 'predicate intelligent resolution' presented.'' Ohio Robinette, 117 417, 420, --- ---- (1996) Vance Terrazas, 444 252, 258-259, 5, 100 540, 544-545, 62 461 (1980)). ''fairly included'' presented. 14.1. addressed briefs oral decide preferred differences perceived in, inter alia, systems evidence. 22-23.

Category: 8