Monday, October 09, 2006

SCOTUS Denies Review in Several Federal Practice & Procedure Cases

Here is a listing of some of the cases denied review by the Supreme Court last week touching on civil procedure topics as reported by BNA's Supreme Court Today:

Pulliam v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 161 Fed. Appx. 494 (6th Cir.) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b))
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3165)
Question Presented: Did filing of documents known to be inaccurate constitute "fraud upon court"?
Summary: Alleged misstatements of bank's losses did not establish fraud upon court in light of parties' settlement of disputed sum for much smaller amount, and thus district court's denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment is affirmed.

Safeguard International Fund LP v. IFC Interconsult AG, 438 F.3d 298 (3rd Cir.) (Ancillary jurisdiction over garnishment proceeding)
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3164)
Question Presented: Does a federal court have ancillary jurisdiction over garnishment proceeding brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 69 against entity that was not party to original action but has indemnification agreement with judgment debtor, when there is no overlap at all between issues adjudicated in original action and issues adjudicated in garnishment proceeding?
Summary of Ruling Below: Federal district court has ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate garnishment action by judgment creditor against nonparty to original lawsuit that is alleged to be derivatively liable to garnishor based on contractual obligation to indemnify judgment debtor.

ScripSolutions v. Eufaula Drugs Inc., (11th Cir. 12/27/05, unpublished) (Relation back to filing of original complaint)
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3164)
Question Presented: Under CAFA, does addition of new defendant to state court action meeting requirements of statute after statute's effective date constitute commencement of action against defendant according it right to remove action to federal court under terms of CAFA statute?
Summary of Ruling Below: Defendant has presented no meritorious claim of legal error in district court's application of relation-back doctrine, under which district court determined (i) that plaintiff's amended and restated class action complaint, filed April 8, 2005 against "ScripSolutions" and various fictitious defendants, related back to filing of its original complaint on Feb. 14, 2005 against "ScriptSolutions" and various fictitious parties, and (ii) that therefore Class Action Fairness Act, which did not become effective until Feb. 18, 2005 and is not retroactive, did not apply; because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars appellate review of district court's order unless CAFA applies, appeal is dismissed.

Waugh v. Horton, (Horton v. Conklin, 8th Cir., 431 F.3d 602) (Federal jurisdiction--Forum defendant rule—Waiver)
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3164)
Question Presented: Was Eighth Circuit correct to hold, in conflict with other circuits, that violation of "forum defendant rule" of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) is jurisdictional defect requiring remand, rather than defect "other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction" that is waived if not raised in timely motion to remand case?
Summary of Ruling Below: Violation of "forum defendant rule" of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), under which non-federal question case may be removed from state to federal court "only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought," is jurisdictional defect, rather than procedural irregularity that may be waived, and thus, because federal court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review remand order based on jurisdictional defect raised at any time before final judgment, district court order remanding case to state court, based on violation of forum defendant rule, is not reviewable on appeal.

Readers may visit for a full listing of cases denied review.


Post a Comment

<< Home