Document: 537 U.S. 28 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC., ET AL.v.HENSON. No. 01-757. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 15, 2002. Decided November 5, Respondent Henson's Louisiana state-court tort suit against petitioners was stayed when respondent intervened in the similar Price suit, underway Federal District for Southern Alabama. Although ensuing settlement stipulated that Henson action be dismissed with prejudice, state court allowed to proceed. Petitioners removed Middle Louisiana, relying upon general removal statute, U.S.C. § 1441(a), and asserting federal jurisdiction under All Writs Act, 1651, supplemental 1367. The case transferred Alabama, which, inter alia, as barred by settlement. As relevant here, Eleventh Circuit vacated, reasoning 1441 its terms authorizes only actions over which district courts have original jurisdiction, that, because Act writs aid courts' respective jurisdictions without providing any subject-matter own right, could not support from court. Held: does furnish jurisdiction. That alone or combination existence ancillary enforcement is a substitute 1441's requirement an order it Pp. 31-34. (a) Act—which provides, 1651(a), "courts established . Congress may issue all necessary appropriate their jurisdictions"—does authorize action. In arguing supports removal, relies States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 159, 172, Pennsylvania Bureau Correction Marshals Service, 474 34, 41. latter case, however, made clear "[w]here statute specifically addresses particular at hand, authority, controlling." Id., 43. Removal entirely creature "a commenced must remain there until cause shown transfer some act Congress." Great Northern R. Co. Alexander, 246 276, 280. not, resorting avoid complying statutory requirements removal. See Bureau, supra, Section 1441(a) provides "any civil brought State removed." Under those plain terms, properly remove action, demonstrate lies courts. Because confer on courts, cannot required 1441. 31-33. (b) Nor considered conjunction doctrine Such "may extend claims having factual logical dependence `the primary lawsuit.'" Peacock Thomas, 516 349, 355. controversy before assert claims, ibid., provide show qualify Invoking like invoking dispense need comply requirements. 33-34. 261 F.3d 1065, affirmed. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. STEVENS, filed concurring opinion, post, p. 35. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Henry B. Alsobrook, Jr., argued petitioners. With him briefs were Mark Surprenant, Robert N. Markle, Alan Nadel. David J. Bederman brief respondent.* CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST 1 Hurley Iberville Parish, petitioner Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. (then known Ciba-Geigy Corp.) various related petitioners' manufacture sale chlordimeform-based insecticide. A Corp., already respondent's successfully participated included stipulation "including [petitioners], shall dismissed, prejudice," approval date. App. 38a; see also id., 36a. 2 Following settlement, conducted hearing determine whether should dismissed. Counsel told dismissal raised Henson. this representation appeared contrary agreement, relied invited amend complaint proceed 3 did attend hearing. Upon learning court's promptly 1441(a). notice asserted granted Alabama pursuant 1404(a), then sanctioned counsel his misrepresentation 4 Appeals affirmed sanctions but vacated Court's dismissing 1065 (2001). reasoned But "in [the courts'] jurisdictions" see, e.g., Clinton Goldsmith, 526 529, 534-535 (1999). Therefore, concluded, 5 so holding, recognized several Circuits held gives authority prevent frustration orders has previously issued. See, Xiong Minnesota, 195 424, 426 (CA8 1999); Bylinski Allen Park, 169 1001, 1003 (CA6 re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 996 F.2d 1425, 1431 (CA2 1993). It noted, other agreed conclusion Hillman Webley, 115 1461, 1469 (CA10 1997). We certiorari resolve controversy, 534 1126 (2001), now affirm. 6 "[t]he agreeable usages principles law." advance two arguments claim proper Act: (1) authorized (2) address these contentions turn. 7 First, petitioners, endorsed "All removal," rely our statement 172 (1977), "to such commands effectuate issued exercise otherwise obtained." cite 41 (1985), proposition "fill[s] interstices judicial power gaps threate[n] thwart jurisdiction." They argue comes into play here maintenance frustrated express claims" 8 U.S., right 280 (1918) (citing Gold-Washing Water Keyes, 96 199, 201 (1878)). These procedures are strictly construed. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. Sheets, 313 100, 108-109 (1941) (noting policy underlying statutes "is one calling strict construction legislation"); Healy Ratta, 292 263, 270 (1934) ("Due regard rightful independence governments requires [federal courts] scrupulously confine precise limits defined"); Matthews Rodgers, 284 521, 525 (1932); Kline Burke Constr. 260 226, 233-234 (1922). 43 (All "does ad hoc whenever compliance appears inconvenient less appropriate"). 9 Petitioners' question presented suggests variation first argument, asking "vests 1441." Pet. Cert. i (emphasis added). 1441, defendant defendants, division embracing place where pending," unless otherwise. provision, concede specific independent grant Brief 9; Clinton, (express issuing process `in of' existing jurisdiction; enlarge jurisdiction"). 10 Second, contend we explained 355 (1996), "[a]ncillary emphasize retained thus distinguishing Kokkonen Guardian Life Ins. America, 511 375 (1994), found lacking. undermined light appropriate.* they fail explain how retention governed invocation 11 Read petition certiorari, perhaps argument Peacock, "court claims." Ancillary therefore, 12 court, requirement. Accordingly, judgment 13 Affirmed. Notes: * Weiner Jonathan Harrison Advisory Council, Inc., amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs amici affirmance Texas John Cornyn, Attorney General Texas, Lonny S. Hoffman, Gregory Coleman; Association Trial Lawyers America Jeffrey White; Public Justice Adam Samaha, Roberta Walburn, Martha K. Wivell, Arthur H. Bryant. assertion "necessary" unpersuasive bottom. One position apply approved injunction requiring rival sought determination concurring. acknowledges, ante, 32, decisions Courts disapprove today large part decision 159 (1977).* For reasons stated Part II my dissenting case—reasons echoed today—I believe clearly misconstrued Act. 186-190 (opinion part). 178 (Stewart, overly expansive interpretation given produce further mischief, I would expressly overrule misguided decision. observations, join opinion. See,e.g., VMS Securities 103 1317, 1323 (CA7 1996); Sable Motors 90 171, 175 Jurisdiction 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 401, 417 (1999) nearly Telephone). Indeed, below observed most powerful favor provided "broad view Act's purpose" articulated Telephone. 1070 (CA11 2001).

Category: 8