IN RE INFANT FORMULA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL 878; FLEMING COMPANIES, INC.; STATE OF LOUISIANA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by class plaintiffs (“Appellants”) of an order denying their motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against Locator of Missing Heirs, Inc. (“Ap-pellee”), a non-party to the pending Antitrust action brought by Appellants against several manufacturers of infant formula.
The district court denied Appellants’ motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We affirm. Appellants say the district court has subject' matter jurisdiction over this matter involving a non-party under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) or the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
The district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter is a question of law reviewed de novo. Sea Vessel, Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F. 3d 345 (11th Cir.1994). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal jurisdiction, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 & n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978).
Rule 23(d) is only a procedural law; it is not a grant of subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. AFFIRMED. Appellants propose the All Writs Act as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. Appellants never raised this issue at trial and are foreclosed from raising it now. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 119-121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 3 F. 3d 391, 395 (11th Cir.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matter of Munford, Inc. v. Munford, Inc., 97 F.3d 449 (11th Cir. 1996)…nonsettling defendants’ unasserted state law contribution and indemnity claims. This court reviews questions of law de novo applying the same legal standards that bound the district court. Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation v. Abbott Laboratories, 72 F. 3d 842, 843 (11th Cir.1995). In this case, the nonsettling defendants contend that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to enter an order barring their state law claims of contribution and indemnity against VRC because these claims were unasserted, ag…
-
In re T2 Med. v. Allegra, 130 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 1997)…dered carried with the ease. DISCUSSION A district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction constitutes a question of law that we review de novo. Fleming Cos. v. Abbott Lab. (In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL 878), 72 F. 3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir.1995). The prescriptions of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), control this ease. In Kokkonen, the parties settled a…
-
Lohstreter v. English, 2020 WL 3847839 (N.D. Fla. 2024)…kson v. Baisden, No. 21-13004, 2022 WL 610314, at *1 (11th Cir. 2022) (holding the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a non-party); see also In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL 878 v. Abbott Lab., 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995) (affirming that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction against a non-party). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injuction should be denied. II. Motion to Appoi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976)
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1978)
- In re the Complaint of the SEA Vessel, Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F.3d 345 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Sunrise Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 3 F.3d 391 (11th Cir. 1993)