21 Cited authorities

Sparta Surgical v. Nat. Ass'n of Sec. Dealers
159 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 596 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “although [plaintiff's] theories are posited as state law claims,” their viability depended on whether the SRO's “rules were violated,” thereby triggering the exclusive jurisdiction provision of § 78aa
Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Services, Inc.
340 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 372 times
Holding that federal law was not "necessary element" of UCL claim, since plaintiff"does not have to rely on a violation of the Exchange Act nor an infraction of an NYSE rule or regulation to bring a UCL claim in California state court. He merely has to allege that Defendants' conduct was either unfair or fraudulent. . . . Rather, [plaintiff] seeks to use a state statute, namely California's Unfair Competition Law, as a vehicle to hold Defendants liable for misleading and deceptive practices . . ."
Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
99 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 213 times
Holding that federal jurisdiction over state claims could not be premised on § 78aa because that statute refers to claims created by the Exchange Act and rules promulgated thereunder, not to claims created by state law
D'Alessio v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
258 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 163 times
Holding that a self-regulating authority like FINRA is "immune from liability for claims arising out of the discharge of its duties under the Exchange Act"
Ford v. Hamilton Investments, Inc.
29 F.3d 255 (6th Cir. 1994) Cited 126 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that dispute about arbitration compliance with NASD rules did not give rise to federal question jurisdiction based on SEC approval of rules, particularly where claim did not allege violation of securities laws or seek to enforce any duty created by such laws
Crosby v. Cooper B-Line, Inc.
725 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2013) Cited 70 times
Holding that the court has an independent obligation to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction is proper
Colonial Realty Corporation v. Bache Co.
358 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1966) Cited 200 times
Addressing subject matter jurisdiction, even though defendant did not seek leave to appeal district court's denial of its motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff and limited partner of defendant general partnership were not diverse
In re Nasdaq Market Makers Antitrust
929 F. Supp. 174 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Cited 81 times
Finding state law claim to be a "well-disguised federal claim" where, inter alia, "the Alabama statute makes illegal essentially the same acts prohibited by the federal antitrust laws"
Kidd v. Southwest Airlines, Co.
891 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 95 times
Holding that amending complaint after denial of a motion to remand was taking advantage of the federal forum and constituted waiver
Merrill Lynch v. Georgiadis
903 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 78 times
Holding that "the arbitration rules of an exchange are sufficient to compel arbitration" by a customer
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,317 times 134 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Citadel Securities LLC et al v. Chicago Board Options Exchange Incorporated, et al.

21 Cited authorities

Holding that “although [plaintiff's] theories are posited as state law claims,” their viability depended on whether the SRO's “rules were violated,” thereby triggering the exclusive jurisdiction provision of § 78aa

Holding that federal jurisdiction over state claims could not be premised on § 78aa because that statute refers to claims created by the Exchange Act and rules promulgated thereunder, not to claims created by state law

Holding that a self-regulating authority like FINRA is "immune from liability for claims arising out of the discharge of its duties under the Exchange Act"

Holding that dispute about arbitration compliance with NASD rules did not give rise to federal question jurisdiction based on SEC approval of rules, particularly where claim did not allege violation of securities laws or seek to enforce any duty created by such laws

Holding that the court has an independent obligation to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction is proper

Addressing subject matter jurisdiction, even though defendant did not seek leave to appeal district court's denial of its motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff and limited partner of defendant general partnership were not diverse

Finding state law claim to be a "well-disguised federal claim" where, inter alia, "the Alabama statute makes illegal essentially the same acts prohibited by the federal antitrust laws"

Holding that amending complaint after denial of a motion to remand was taking advantage of the federal forum and constituted waiver

Holding that "the arbitration rules of an exchange are sufficient to compel arbitration" by a customer

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."