subject matter jurisdiction

Badgerow v. Walters

Issues

Do federal courts have jurisdiction to decide post-award arbitration claims when subject-matter jurisdiction is based solely on an undisputed federal claim?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine to what extent proceedings to vacate or enforce an award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) belong in federal court. The Supreme Court has previously decided that motions to compel arbitration can be heard in federal court if there is a federal question when the court “looks through” to the underlying claim. Denise Badgerow contends that the Supreme Court’s look-through approach does not apply to post-award proceedings; in her view, a plain reading of the FAA deprives federal district courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate post-award claims. Walters counters that federal district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction in such instances, and that a motion to vacate an arbitration award does not deprive federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over underlying controversies. The outcome of this case has serious implications for future parties to arbitration proceedings under the FAA and for the federal district courts’ authority to enforce arbitration awards.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.

From January 2014 to July 2016, Denise A. Badgerow worked as an associate financial advisor for REJ Properties, Inc (“REJ”). Badgerow v. Walters at 2.

Submit for publication
0

Brownback v. King

Issues

Does a judgment in favor of the United States on state law tort claims brought under Section 1346(b)(1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act necessarily preclude a plaintiff from seeking recourse under Bivens for a civil rights violation stemming from the same underlying factual allegations?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a judgment against the plaintiff on a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim, alleging violations under state tort law, bars the plaintiff from pursuing a constitutional remedy under Bivens. Petitioner Douglas Brownback contends that the district court’s dismissal of Respondent James King’s FTCA claims on the basis of his failure to establish the elements of Section 1346(b) constitutes a final judgment on the merits of all claims pertaining to the same subject matter. Brownback argues that consistent with the purpose of the statute, Section 2676 of the FTCA bars King from pursuing his Bivens action. King counters that the judgment bar should be interpreted to incorporate the doctrine of res judicata, which precludes subsequent claims only if a court with jurisdiction has entered a judgment on the merits. King argues that since no such jurisdiction exists over the claims in this case, his Bivens action should not be barred. The outcome of this case has significant implications for plaintiffs’ access to courts and the avenues for relief plaintiffs may pursue to hold government officials accountable for state tort and constitutional violations.    

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under Section 1346(b)(1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, on the ground that a private person would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law for the injuries alleged, bars a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics that is brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to the claimant’s FTCA claim.

On July 18, 2014, Officer Ted Allen, a detective with the Grand Rapids Police, and Agent Douglas Brownback, a special agent with the FBI, participated in a joint fugitive task force in search of a criminal suspect pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the State of Michigan. King v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Carlsbad Technology, Inc. V. HIF Bio, Inc.

Issues

Whether a district court's order to remand a case to state court after declining supplemental jurisdiction is properly considered a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), therefore preventing a court of appeals from reviewing the remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

 

Respondents HIF Bio, Inc. and BizBiotech Company, Ltd. sued petitioners Carlsbad Technology, Inc. ("CTI") and others in state court. CTI removed the case to a federal district court, which soon after granted a motion to dismiss a federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim. The district court then remanded the case back to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining  state law  claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to review the matter, asserting it lacked jurisdiction to do so. In this case, the United States Supreme Court considers whether a district court's order to remand a case to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), thus barring the order from appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). This case will address a procedural issue that the Supreme Court's decisions in Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988) and Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2411, 2416 (2007) left open to conflicting interpretations by the courts of appeals.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988), this Court held that district courts could remand removed claims upon deciding not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). However, in Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2411, 2416 (2007), the Court stated that "it is far from clear . . . that when discretionary supplemental jurisdiction is declined the remand is not based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for purposes of § 1447(c) and § 1447(d)" and noted that "[w]e have never passed on whether Cohill remands are subject-matter jurisdictional for purposes of post-1988 versions § 1447(c) and § 1447(d)." Construing Powerex as leaving the question open, the Federal Circuit held that a remand based on declining supplemental jurisdiction can be colorably characterized as a remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, thus disagreeing with the nine other federal courts of appeals that have construed Cohill as distinguishing between remands for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remands based on declining to exercise subject matter jurisdiction that already exists. Thus, this petition presents the question posed but left unanswered in Powerex that is now the subject of a direct conflict among the circuits:

1. Whether a district court's order remanding a case to state court following its discretionary decision to decline to exercise the supplemental jurisdiction accorded to federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is properly held to be a remand for a "lack of subject matter jurisdiction" under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) so that such remand order is barred from any appellate review by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

From 1999 to 2001, Korean researchers Jong-Wan Park ("Park") and Yang-Sook Chun ("Chun") studied a potential cancer-fighting chemical compound. See HIF Bio, Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals Industrial Co., Ltd. et al., 508 F.3d 659, 660-61 (Fed. Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Cyan, Inc. et al. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund

Issues

Can state courts adjudicate “covered class actions” that allege claims only under the Securities Act of 1933?

The Supreme Court will determine whether state courts can hear claims filed solely under the Securities Act of 1933 as “covered class actions.” The case arises out of a decrease in Cyan, Inc.’s stock prices, which led investors, including the Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, to sue as a class in state court for alleged disclosure violations. Cyan argues that California state courts could not hear this case, because the Securities Act’s legislative history and existing regulatory structure suggests that Congress intended for all class actions filed under the Securities Act to be tried in federal courts. Beaver, on the other hand, claims that Congress intended to give state and federal courts concurrent jurisdiction—i.e., both state and federal courts can hear this case. The stakes of the case are also in dispute: organizations supporting Cyan claim that a Beaver victory would promote inconsistent Securities Act decisions in federal and state courts, encourage forum shopping, and harm the capital markets. Beaver’s supporters disagree, asserting that the effects of a decision in its favor would be minimal.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether state courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over “covered class actions,” 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), that allege only claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) to regulate the securities industry after the 1929 stock market crash. Brief for Petitioners, Cyan, Inc., et al. at 2. The Securities Act allows securities acquirers to sue securities issuers if the issuers fail to comply with their obligations under the Securities Act. Id.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

diversity jurisdiction

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States

Issues

Whether the statute of limitations in the Tucker Act limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims?

 

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. (“JRS”) brought a takings claim against the United States government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act. The United States filed a motion to dismiss the action, claiming that JRS filed the suit after the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations expired. The United States Court of Federal Claims denied the motion to dismiss. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the decision of the lower court because it found that the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim, even though neither party raised the issue of jurisdiction; it was raised by a group of interested third parties in an amicus brief.  The Federal Circuit, agreeing with the amicus brief, dismissed the case, finding that the statute of limitations was a jurisdictional issue that the court could raise sua sponte, or on its own, and that JRS brought the claim too late. JRS argues that the plain language of the statute shows that the statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional issue and the court could not raise the issue sua sponte.  JRS relies on the legislative history of the Tucker Act to support its point. Conversely, the United States government argues that because the statute of limitations is part of Congress’s waiver of sovereign immunity, it does limit the jurisdiction of the court. While the issue in this case is narrow, the Court’s decision may help in delineating where the Court draws the line between which issues are jurisdictional and which are not.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The statute of limitations in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2501, provides: “Every claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.”  The question presented is:  Whether the statute of limitations in Tucker Act limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In 1969, John R. Sand & Gravel Co. (“JRS”) signed a 50 year lease for a 158-acre tract of land in Michigan. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 457 F.3d 1345, (Fed. Cir.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Kevin Clermont for his insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum

Issues

Whether an American federal court can hear a claim under the Alien Tort statute, when that claim arose out of conduct in a foreign country.

 

Petitioner Esther Kiobel, representing a group of individuals from the Ogoni region in Nigeria, filed a class action lawsuit against Respondents, the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC, and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, LTD (“Royal Dutch”) under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”). The ATS grants jurisdiction to some federal courts for certain violations of international law. Petitioners allege that Royal Dutch aided the Nigerian government in committing various acts of violence against protestors of the oil exploration projects in the Ogoni region.  Petitioners claim that they have standing to sue under the ATS because the history, text, and purpose of the statute support the application of the ATS to actions in foreign countries. Petitioner also contends that previous court decisions interpreted the ATS to extend beyond U.S. territory. In response, Royal Dutch argues that the ATS is not an exception to the presumption that U.S. law does not apply extraterritorially, and should not be applicable to actions outside of the U.S. The Court's decision in this case will clarify the reach of the U.S. federal courts' jurisdiction over certain extraterritorial tort claims. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question, as it has been treated by all courts prior to the decision below, or an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, as the court of appeals held for the first time.

Esther Kiobel represents a class of citizens from the Ogoni region in Nigeria who filed a class action suit against the respondents Royal Dutch Petroleum, Shell Transport and Trading Company and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (“Royal Dutch Petroleum”) in the United States District Court for

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust

Issues

Did the Appeals Court have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order to remand a suit removed under SLUSA, where the district court held the suit in state court was not removable under SLUSA and it thus had no “subject matter jurisdiction,” given that when a case is remanded under the lack of subject matter jurisdiction statute 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) a party cannot appeal the remand order?

 

Petitioners are a group of investors who owned shares in mutual funds offered or advised by respondents, Putnam Funds Trust. These investors brought a class action suit in Illinois state court asserting  breach  of fiduciary duty and alleging that the mutual funds set prices in a way that allowed arbitrageurs to exploit differences in prices to the detriment of long-term investors. The respondents removed the suit to federal court pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). The judge then remanded the case to state court because the petitioners had not alleged a loss “in connection with the purchase or sale of securities” as required under the Act. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), such a remand is not appealable if the remand is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit, in conflict with previous decisions by the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, ruled that the remand was reviewable because the basis of the SLUSA remand  was not  lack  of  subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not apply. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court will address whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars appellate review of remand orders in suits removed under statutes such as SLUSA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction, contrary to the holdings of three other circuits, to review a district court order remanding for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction a suit removed under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)'s bar on appellate review of remand orders based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the district courts' conclusion that petitioners' claims are not preempted by and thus not removable under SLUSA.

In 1998, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”). Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 373 F.3d 847, 847 (2004).

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc.

Issues

Does a federal court have jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit that seeks to enjoin a state tax credit based on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause?

 

Respondent, Commerce Energy, Inc., sued the Ohio Tax Commissioner, Petitioner, Richard Levin, alleging Ohio's tax scheme violates the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Commerce contends that four Ohio companies benefit from certain tax exemptions that Commerce is not eligible for as an out-of-state company. Levin argues that the Tax Injunction Act and principles of comity bar Commerce's suit from proceeding in a federal court. Commerce counters that a federal court has jurisdiction to hear their suit. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will clarify the scope of the federal judiciary's authority to hear lawsuits regarding state tax law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Did the Court’s decision in Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004), which addressed the scope of the Tax Injunction Act’s bar against federal cases seeking to enjoin the assessment and collection of state taxes, eliminate or narrow the doctrine of comity, which more broadly precludes federal jurisdiction over cases that intrude on the administration of state taxation?

2. Do either comity principles or the Tax Injunction Act bar federal jurisdiction over a case in which taxpayers allege, on equal protection and dormant Commerce Clause grounds, that their tax assessments are discriminatory relative to other taxpayers’ assessments?

Respondents, Commerce Energy, Inc., a California corporation, and Interstate Gas Supply Inc., an Ohio corporation (collectively “Commerce”), sell and market natural gas to consumers in Ohio. See Commerce Energy, Inc. v. Levin, 554 F.3d 1094, 1096 (2009).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.

Issues

Do federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over lawsuits against the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) based soley on the sue-and-be-sued clause in its congressional charter? 

The Supreme Court will decide whether the sue-and-be-sued clause in Fannie Mae’s congressional charter under 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a) confers original jurisdiction to federal district courts for cases to which Fannie Mae is a party. Petitioners Crystal Lightfoot and Beverly Hollis-Arrington argue that the clause is not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. In doing so, they contend that the clause requires an independent determination of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the Court’s decision in Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992), did not establish an “if federal, then jurisdiction” rule, which diverges from the Court’s past methods of statutory interpretation and creates confusion. Respondent Fannie Mae argues that Lightfoot and Hollis-Arrington misconstrue Red Cross and asserts that the statutory language, legislative history, context, and purpose of Fannie Mae as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) confirm that Fannie Mae’s charter confers federal question jurisdiction. This case will clarify the scope of jurisdiction for GSEs under Article III and will settle whether private individuals can file suit against GSEs in federal district court based on state-law causes of action.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The congressional charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) grants it the power “to sue and to be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a).

The questions presented are:

  1. whether the phrase “to sue and be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal” in Fannie Mae’s charter confers original jurisdiction over every case brought by or against Fannie Mae to the federal courts; and
  2. whether the majority’s decision in Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992) (5-4 decision), should be reversed. 

In 2001, Petitioner Hollis-Arrington filed a suit, pro se, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Cendant Mortgage Corporation, Fannie Mae, and Attorneys Equity National Corporation, all of which had participated in foreclosure proceedings against the home that Hollis-Arrington shared with Petitioner Crystal Lightfoot in California.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to subject matter jurisdiction