30 Cited authorities

Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (1971) Cited 16,871 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was improper for the district court in that case to enjoin a state prosecution against Younger, in light of "the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances"
Mine Workers v. Gibbs
383 U.S. 715 (1966) Cited 17,859 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that supplemental jurisdiction is a "doctrine of discretion"
Merrill v. Dabit
547 U.S. 71 (2006) Cited 671 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law class action securities fraud claims brought by “holders” of securities are, just like those of “purchasers” and “sellers,” preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
Valencia ex Rel. Franco v. Lee
316 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 653 times
Holding that the district court abused its discretion in continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims had been dismissed
Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney Squire
464 F.3d 328 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 420 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court had ancillary jurisdiction over a fee dispute because the facts of the two claims "substantially overlapped" (quoting Lyndonville, 211 F.3d at 704)
Montefiore Medical Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272
642 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 363 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the “exception to the [ordinary] ERISA standing requirements” for “healthcare providers to whom a beneficiary has assigned his claim in exchange for health care” is “narrow”
Klein Co. Futures, Inc. v. Board of Trade
464 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 361 times
Noting that private plaintiff must “fall within one of the four required relationships set forth in § 22(A–D)”
Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP
505 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 203 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that mandatory abstention cannot apply where "arising in" jurisdiction exists
Brzak v. United Nations
597 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 180 times
Holding that "the CPIUN unequivocally grants the United Nations absolute immunity without exception," and therefore it need not consider plaintiff's argument that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act stripped the UN of IOIA immunity in certain circumstances
Parmalat Capital Finance v. Bank of America
639 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 153 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was "not difficult to conclude that the ‘conceivable effect’ test is satisfied" in an action brought by a trustee under state law to recover assets for a bankruptcy estate
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 348,617 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 1334 Cited 40,825 times 57 Legal Analyses
Granting "exclusive jurisdiction" to a federal court handling a bankruptcy case "of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate"
Section 1452 - Removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases
28 U.S.C. § 1452 Cited 2,581 times 14 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to any “party” in a bankruptcy case
Section 78bb - Effect on existing law
15 U.S.C. § 78bb Cited 907 times 30 Legal Analyses
Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
Section 304 - Repealed
11 U.S.C. § 304 Cited 282 times 5 Legal Analyses
Authorizing courts to stay United States actions against companies or property subject to a foreign insolvency proceeding

In Re: Refco Securities Litigation

30 Cited authorities

Holding that it was improper for the district court in that case to enjoin a state prosecution against Younger, in light of "the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances"

Holding that supplemental jurisdiction is a "doctrine of discretion"

Holding that state law class action securities fraud claims brought by “holders” of securities are, just like those of “purchasers” and “sellers,” preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act

Holding that the district court abused its discretion in continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims had been dismissed

Holding that the court had ancillary jurisdiction over a fee dispute because the facts of the two claims "substantially overlapped" (quoting Lyndonville, 211 F.3d at 704)

Holding that the “exception to the [ordinary] ERISA standing requirements” for “healthcare providers to whom a beneficiary has assigned his claim in exchange for health care” is “narrow”

Noting that private plaintiff must “fall within one of the four required relationships set forth in § 22(A–D)”

Holding that mandatory abstention cannot apply where "arising in" jurisdiction exists

Holding that "the CPIUN unequivocally grants the United Nations absolute immunity without exception," and therefore it need not consider plaintiff's argument that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act stripped the UN of IOIA immunity in certain circumstances

Holding that it was "not difficult to conclude that the ‘conceivable effect’ test is satisfied" in an action brought by a trustee under state law to recover assets for a bankruptcy estate

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Granting "exclusive jurisdiction" to a federal court handling a bankruptcy case "of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate"

Granting removal power to any “party” in a bankruptcy case

Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

Authorizing courts to stay United States actions against companies or property subject to a foreign insolvency proceeding