In Morris v. Bessemer City Board of Education (N.D. Ala. 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama reviewed claims of employment discrimination and retaliation brought by Connie Morris, a former athletic director.
In Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 1999), the Eleventh Circuit addressed constitutional challenges to Alabama’s Partial-Birth Abortion Act and its Post-Viability Abortion Statute.
In West Alabama Women’s Center v. Williamson, 900 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2018), the Eleventh Circuit examined the constitutionality of Alabama’s Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. The law sought to ban dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, a standard method utilized in most second-trimester abortions and miscarriages.
The Alabama Constitution contains several provisions relevant to matters of reproduction, marriage, and freedom of religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), held that two requirements of Texas’s H.B.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that under the Fourteenth Amendment states must both license marriages between two people of the same sex and recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.
Must an appellate court vacate a district court’s final judgment as to completely diverse parties if it determines the district court was wrong to dismiss a non-diverse party at the time the case was removed?
This case asks the Court to determine whether an appellate court must vacate a district court’s final judgment if it determines the district court erred in dismissing a non-diverse party when the case was removed. The Hain Celestial Group (“Hain”), as Petitioner, argues that the district court had jurisdiction to enter final judgment because the parties before it were completely diverse after Whole Foods, Inc. (“Whole Foods”) was dismissed. Alternatively, Hain argues Whole Foods could be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 as a dispensable party. Sarah Palmquist, Grant Palmquist, and E.P. (the “Palmquists”), as Respondents, argue that Whole Foods remained a part of the litigation until the final judgment, destroying the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Palmquists argue that Hain’s Rule 21 argument is improper and would result in prejudice to them. The outcome of this case could impact forum shopping strategies and increase the resources parties must expend if they must relitigate claims after a final judgment is vacated.
Whether a district court’s final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Grant and Sarah Palmquist (the “Palmquists”) had a son (“E.P.”) in 2014. See Palmquist v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.at 2. The Palmquists allege that E.P.’s diet consisted of “almost exclusively” products manufactured by Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (“Hain”) during his first two years of life.
The authors would like to thank Professor Maggie Gardner for her insights into this case.
