Court Opinion

ID: 9494578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:40:39.482822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:28.662143
License: Public Domain

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ,
dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc.
I voted to rehear this case for the reasons set forth in my panel dissent. See Rosmer v. Pfizer Inc., 263 F.3d 110, 122-129 (4th Cir.2001) (Motz, J., dissenting). I will not repeat those reasons here. I write again only to address the assertion in the concurrence that some personal policy preference disfavoring diversity jurisdiction animates my views. Ante at 244. The panel majority made a similar contention. See Rosmer, 263 F.3d at 119, 121. This suggestion is as inaccurate now as it was then. In fact, as a member of the Federal Courts Study Committee, I voted against the Committee’s recommendation to abolish or limit diversity jurisdiction. See Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee at-42-43 (April 2, 1990). My panel dissent and vote to rehear this case reflect no distaste for diversity jurisdiction. On the contrary, my views in this case simply evidence the recognition that as a judge I must follow eongressionally enacted statutory language, regardless of personal preference.
Judge LUTTIG joins in this dissent.