Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Diversity Jurisdiction — Assignment of Claims by Non-Diverse Subsidiaries to Diverse Parent

28 U.S.C. § 1359 provides that "[a] district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of the court." There is a split in the Circuits as to whether to apply a presumption of collusive invocation of jurisdiction when evaluating assignments between related entities. The District Judge in Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Morales, 482 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2007) applied such a presumption where two non-diverse, wholly-owned subsidiaries assigned their claim to their diverse corporate parent, and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit reversed.

Reviewing the authorities, the Eleventh Circuit held that no such presumption was appropriate, following the approach of the Seventh Circuit in Herzog Contracting Corp. v. McGowen Corp., 976 F.2d 1062, 1067 (7th Cir. 1992), and declining to follow the approach of the Second and Ninth Circuits in Prudential Oil Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 546 F.2d 469, 476 (2d Cir. 1976), and Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991-992 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ambrosia opinion relies on the absolute nature of the transfer as the doctrinal basis for its conclusion. It stressed, in addition, the pervasive factual involvement of the parent in the underlying transaction as further making it ‛the real party in interest“ in the litigation.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

Archives