Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied

    WilmerHale LLPMarch 14, 2016

    CAFC Opinion, CAFC ArgumentSouthern Electronics Supply, Inc. v. Camsoft Data Systems, Inc., No. 14-628 Questions Presented: In cases removed to federal court, Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis generally provides a plaintiff the appellate right to challenge the denial of a motion to remand, but qualifies that right if “considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy become overwhelming.” 519 U.S. 61, 75 (1996). The Circuit Courts of Appeals are divided on the proper application of Caterpillar to the following two questions:Whether a plaintiff waives its right to appeal under Caterpillar by amending its complaint, after denial of a motion to remand, to add new and distinct federal claims thereby independently creating undisputed federal-question jurisdiction.Whether a federal court's adjudication of the majority of a plaintiff's claims on summary judgment and dismissals with prejudice creates sufficient considerations of “finality, efficiency, and economy” to foreclose appellate review of the denial of the motion to remand.

  2. Timing is Everything: When Is The Right Time To Move To Remand?

    Carlton Fields Jorden BurtJeffrey CohenSeptember 29, 2015

    If the latter, the failure to raise within 30 days would likely not be deemed a waiver since jurisdictional defects can be asserted at any time. SeeCaterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 69 (1996) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, May 26, 2003

    Capital Defense NewsletterMay 26, 2003

    We think Petitioner "moves too quickly over the terrain we must cover." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 73, 117 S. Ct. 467, 475, 136 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1996). The Court's opinions in Payne are carefully circumscribed.