Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc. v. Grill Holdings, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132930 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015):
II. All Writs Act
In the alternative, Defendants assert that the Court should exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the All Writs Act, which states that "[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."21 There is a circuit split concerning whether the All Writs Act can, in extraordinary circumstances, provide jurisdiction to remove a case where there is no independent basis for jurisdiction. Though the Fifth Circuit has yet to definitively rule on this question, it has expressed an aversion to this liberal construction of the All Writs Act, especially in light of Rivet.22 Indeed, the only case cited by Defendants in support of this argument is an opinion from this District in which the judge ultimately rejected a similar argument.23 The Court, therefore, declines to exercise jurisdiction under the All Writs Act.
21 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
22 Texas v. Real Parties in Interest, 259 F.3d 387, 393-94 ("With Rivet standing as sentry, it would be bold indeed to read the All Writs Act as authorizing removal of an otherwise unremovable action.").
23 Billieson, 2002 WL 221609, at *4.
Share this article: