Exxon mobil corp v allapattah services

Allapattah Services, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States held that U. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES , INC. The plaintiffs brought their case in Federal District Court, invoking that Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, but the District Court judge certified the case for review on the question of supplemental jurisdiction. Remit payment: ExxonMobil Fleet Card Fleet Services P. Al­la­p­at­tah Ser­vices, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States held that U. Inc Case Brief - Rule of Law: As long as one plaintiff’s claim satisfies the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, the court may exercise jurisdiction over additional plaintiff’s case that fall short of the requirement, when all claims arise from the same case or controversy. One of the most important statutory grants of federal jurisdiction to the Federal Courts is U. Exxon Corporation ( Exxon ) (defendant). ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, PETITIONER. BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS. INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. This case concerns the proper scope of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, U. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.

ORAL ARGUMENT OF CARTER G. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court: This Court years ago in Zahn v. Department of Health and Human Services. Maria Del Rosario Ortega, et al. Court will take another swing at deciding whether U. Customer Service Call Center hours of operation: a. In diversity cases, only one plaintiff or class member must satisfy the amount in.

NATURE OF THE CASE: A number of cases were consolidated to present the question whether a federal court in a diversity action may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs whose claims do not satisfy the minimum amount in controversy requirement, provided the claims are part of the same case or controversy. Recommended Citation. Supplemental Jurisdiction, and Breaking the Promise of Finley.

Court asked counsel to supplement their legal arguments on the issue of supplemental jurisdiction. Nor are absent class members considered when a court decides whether it is the proper venue. In any event, we must focus foremost on the text of the statute.

And the text of the statute refers to “educational institutions” without drawing a line between teachers and students. In that case, the nation’s highest court held that so long as at least one party has met the requirements of diversity jurisdiction then the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over another party’s claims so long as the only deficiency in the other party’s claims is the amount in controversy. The pendent jurisdiction doctrine is designed to enable federal courts to handle cases involving which of the following?

Neither party challenges the divers ity of citizenship in this case. Instea the jurisdictional challenge centers around the amount in controversy.