News & Analysis as of June 4, 2025

Supreme Court of the United States › Diversity Jurisdiction

+ Follow

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term. The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -

The Supreme Court Update - April 28, 2025

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on 4/29/2025

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in one case: Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist, No. 24-724: This case addresses the scope of federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction....more

The Supreme Court Update - March 10, 2025

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on 3/11/2025

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in two cases: Berk v. Choi, No. 24-440: Many states, including Delaware in this case, have “affidavit of merit” statutes that require certain types of...more

Supreme Court holds that plaintiff can defeat federal question jurisdiction by eliminating all federal questions in post-removal...

Kilpatrick on 2/3/2025

Takeaway: Class action plaintiffs often endeavor to structure their complaints to avoid federal jurisdiction. To avoid federal diversity jurisdiction, for example, class plaintiffs often will name non-diverse defendants with...more

Classified Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts

Carlton Fields on 1/22/2024

Welcome to the inaugural edition of Classified Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions from Federal Appellate Courts. The Roundup normally will arrive in your inbox the first week of each month and will cover the...more

Pleading Artifices and CAFA Removal: Circuit Development

Proskauer - Minding Your Business on 7/5/2023

The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), was enacted to make federal courts the primary venue for class action litigation. It did so by modifying the usual jurisdictional requirements of the diversity jurisdiction statute...more

The LHD/ERISA Advisor - January 2020

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on 1/31/2020

SCOTUS Reviews "Blissful Ignorance" as Statute of Limitations Defense - On December 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 139 S. Ct. 2692 (2019). The question...more

Only in America: The Controversy Concerning Federal Jurisdiction Over Motions to Confirm, Vacate, or Modify Arbitral Awards

Mintz - Arbitration, Mediation, ADR... on 5/8/2017

In most countries, it is uncontroversial that a court sitting at the situs of an arbitration has jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition to confirm or vacate or modify an award issued in that arbitration. In the United States...more

Supreme Court Rules that Citizenship of a Real Estate Investment Entity is Based on Citizenship of its Members, Which Includes...

King & Spalding on 7/26/2016

On March 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) ruled that the citizenship of a Real Estate Investment Entity (“REIT”), for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, is based on the citizenship of its...more

Americold Realty Tr. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.: Citizenship of Maryland REITs

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. on 5/17/2016

In Americold Realty Tr. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016), the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a Maryland real estate investment trust (formed pursuant...more

MoFo Tax Talk - Volume 9, No. 1

Morrison & Foerster LLP on 5/9/2016

IRS Publishes Proposed section 305(c) Regulations - On April 12th, the IRS published proposed regulations under Section 305(c) that address the treatment of deemed dividends to holders of stock and rights to acquire...more

Leaving Real Estate Investment Trusts in the Cold: How the Americold Case Could Preclude Establishing Diversity Jurisdiction in...

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on 4/28/2016

The Supreme Court’s most recent citizenship opinion, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., could make removing or keeping a case in federal court based on diversity more difficult for a statutory trust with a...more

Supreme Court Reinforces Strict Rule On Citizenship of Unincorporated Entities for Diversity Jurisdiction to the Detriment of...

Proskauer - Minding Your Business on 4/12/2016

Article III of the U.S. Constitution extends the jurisdiction of federal courts to “[c]ontroversies … between Citizens of different States.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “This rule is easy enough to apply to humans, but...more

REIT Citizenship and the Impact of Americold Realty Trust on Jurisdictional Challenges

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on 3/16/2016

On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. that unincorporated entities organized as “real estate investment trusts” (REITs) under Maryland law are citizens of every...more

Doctrinal Wall Blocks Unincorporated Entity from Diversity Jurisdiction

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on 3/10/2016

In Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. (No. 14-1382, decided 3/7/16), the Supreme Court of the United States applied its “oft-repeated rule” regarding the citizenship of unincorporated entities to a Maryland...more

Financial Services Weekly News - March 2016

Goodwin on 3/10/2016

Regulatory Developments - CFPB Now Accepting Complaints on Online Marketplace Lenders - On March 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced two initiatives: it will now accept complaints from...more

Supreme Court Severely Restricts Federal-Court Access for Non-Corporate Entities, Including Certain REITs and RICs

Goodwin on 3/9/2016

Business trusts, statutory trusts and non-corporate real-estate investment trusts now face a significant jurisdictional barrier that will reduce their access to the federal courts, following a March 7 ruling by the U.S....more

The Supreme Court - March 2016 #2

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on 3/8/2016

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases today - Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382: Plaintiff corporations, including respondent ConAgra Foods, Inc., brought suit...more

Supreme Court Decides Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on 3/8/2016

On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382, holding that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a “real estate investment trust” established...more

What Does Americold Realty Trust Have To Do With Rule 147?

Allen Matkins on 3/8/2016

Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power of the federal courts may extend to, among other things, controversies between citizens of different states. When a party is a trust, in what state is...more

A No-Win Situation: The Supreme Court Declines To Resolve CAFA Circuit Split

Baker Donelson on 2/19/2016

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) represented a major overhaul of class action lawsuits and made the federal courts available for cases not involving a question of federal law. Among the effects, CAFA greatly...more

High Court Finds Plausible Showing of Amount in Controversy Sufficient to Remove Action

Beveridge & Diamond PC on 2/12/2015

In a decision that may make it somewhat easier for defendants to remove putative class actions from state to federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants in such cases do not need to offer evidence in their...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Removal Pleading Standard

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on 1/15/2015

The US Supreme Court recently held that under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant need not provide proof of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal to federal court. Only a plausible allegation is...more

Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order

Carlton Fields on 1/14/2015

Just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the...more

Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA

Carlton Fields on 12/31/2014

Days before the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the requirements for CAFA notices of removal in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Third Circuit addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving a...more

Supreme Court Establishes New Standards: Removal Pleadings Now Less Burdensome For State Court Suits

Polsinelli on 12/24/2014

Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that a notice of removal from state court to federal court requires only pleading good faith allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds a jurisdictional threshold. The...more

37 Results

View per page

Page: of 2

Supreme Court of the United States › Diversity Jurisdiction

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"