308 F. Supp. 2d 43 - Passa v. Derderian’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1369 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co · New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · United States of America v. American Tobacco Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Limitation of jurisdiction of district courts. — The district court shall abstain from hearing any civil action described in subsection (a) in which— (1) the substantial majority of all plaintiffs are citizens of a single State of which the primary defendants are also citizens; and (2) the claims asserted with be governed primarily by the laws of that State.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ultimately the [Passa] court concluded that “primary defendants”... are “those parties that are allegedly directly liable to the plaintiffs, while ‘secondary’ defendants are ... those parties sued under theories of vicarious liability or joined for purposes of contribution or indemnification.” ... Thus, the court held, “the most appropriate definition of ‘primary defendants’... must include those parties facing direct liability in the instant litigation.” ... The court explained that “all defendants sued directly in a cause of action maintain a dominant relationship to the subject matter of the controversy, while those parties sued under theories of vicarious liability, or joined for purposes of indemnification or contribution, maintain an indirect or ‘secondary’ relationship to the litigation.” ... The court noted that its interpretation of the term “primary defendants” for purposes of the statute was the definition most consistent not only with traditional legal concepts but also judicial economy and fairness to parties, because “it does not require the Court to make a pre-trial determination of liability or culpability, but rather requires only a review of the complaint to determine which defendants are sued directly.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Congress identified certain exceptional circumstances in disaster litigation cases where the state court’s interest in hearing the matter outweighs the federal interest in multidistrict, multiforum consolidation — namely, where the tragedy is sufficiently local in character as to satisfy the tenets of § 1369(b)(1) and (2). In these cases, although jurisdiction is otherwise proper under § 1369(a), the text of § 1369(b) instructs district courts to abstain from hearing them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.