State of Maine v. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc et al
| State of Maine |
| Standard and Poor's Financial Services LLC and MCGraw-Hill Companies Inc |
| United States Of America |
| 1:2013cv03969 |
| June 11, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
73
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking with respect to the State Cases and that those cases must be remanded to the state courts from which they were removed. Additionall y, in light of that result, and the important state interests implicated by the State Cases, the Court is compelled to dismiss the Declaratory Judgment Cases on the grounds of Younger abstention. The Court does not reach those conclusions lightly. Putting aside the natural "tempt[ation] to find federal jurisdiction every time a multi-billion dollar case with national implications arrives at the doorstep of a federal court," Greenwich Fin. Servs. Distressed Mortg. v. Count rywide Fin. Corp., 654 F. Supp. 2d 192, 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), the federal courts undoubtedly have advantages over their state counterparts when it comes to managing a set of substantial cases filed in jurisdictions throughout the country. Through the MDL process, federal cases can be consolidated for pretrial purposes or more, promoting efficiency and minimizing the risks of inconsistent rulings and unnecessary duplication of efforts. Nevertheless, the state courts have devised creative m eans to coordinate among themselves when appropriate. See, e.g., Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Comment: Federal MCL Fourth and Suggestions for State Court Management of Mass Litigation (National Center for State Courts 2006), available at http://cdm165 01.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/civil/id/58 (last visited June 3, 2014). And in any event, as any student of the Constitution knows, efficiency is not the only interest served by this country's federalist system of state and federal courts. In the final analysis, this Court is not free to disregard or evade "[t]he limits upon federal jurisdiction, whether imposed by the Constitution or by Congress." Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). That is, "[w]ith few exceptions, the doors to federal court do not swing open merely because a [party] has a national presence or is alleged to have committed wrongdoing that is national in scope," McGraw-Hill Cos., 2013 WL 1759864 , at *4-5, or merely because litigation in federal court might be more efficient. As discussed above, these cases do not trigger any of the relevant exceptions that would allow the Court to open its doors to federal jurisdiction. At bottom, the di sputes in these cases are disputes arising under state law that belong in state courts. Accordingly, the States' motions are GRANTED, the State Cases are remanded back to state court, and the Declaratory Judgment Cases are dismissed. Mississi ppi's motion for fees and costs, on the other hand, is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to (1) terminate all open motions in 13 MD 2446 and all its member cases; (2) dismiss the Declaratory Judgment Cases, 13 Civ. 4100 and 13 Civ. 4052; and (3) remand all other member cases to the state courts from which they were removed in the first instance. As that disposes of all cases pending before this Court, there is no reason for the MDL to remain open. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is also directed to close 13 MD 2446 and all its member cases, and to notify the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of that closure. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/3/2014) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:13-md-02446-JMF et al. ***Pursuant to instructions from Chambers, docketed in all member/related cases.(mro) Modified on 6/3/2014 (mro).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
