No. 18-1118
Kim Kerrigan v. Qualstar Credit Union, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure federal-appellate-procedure federal-courts federal-jurisdiction presumption-against-jurisdiction procedural-presumption removal removal-jurisdiction standing standing-challenge state-law subject-matter-jurisdiction washington-law
Latest Conference:
2019-04-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
When the standing of a removing defendant is challenged in the Court of Appeals must that Court directly address such standing challenge pursuant to its independent and sua sponte duty to establish that the presumption against lower federal courts subject matter jurisdiction has been rebutted?
Is the presumption against subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts rebutted by Washington procedural law?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the presumption against federal court subject matter jurisdiction is rebutted by state procedural law
Docket Entries
2019-04-29
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-19
Certificate of Word Count and Proof of Service filed with respect to supplemental brief of Kim C. Kerrigan.
2019-04-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-04-09
Supplemental brief of petitioner Kim C. Kerrigan filed. (Distributed) (To Be Recovered)
2019-03-29
Waiver of right of respondent Bayview to respond filed.
2019-03-14
Waiver of right of respondent Qualstar to respond filed.
2019-01-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 29, 2019)
2018-12-27
Application (18A674) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until January 14, 2019.
2018-12-22
Application (18A674) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 2, 2019 to January 14, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Bayview
Stephanie Diane Olson — Klinedinst, P.C., Respondent
Kim C. Kerrigan
Scott Erik Stafne — Stafne Law Advocacy & Consulting, Petitioner
Qualstar
Joseph W. McIntosh — McCarthy & Hothus, LLP, Respondent