Bradgate Associates, Inc. v. Fellows, Read & Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the district court should have dismissed, rather than remand, a case originally filed in federal court
• explaining that the district court erred in remanding case originally filed in federal court and, instead, should have dismissed case over which it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
• finding that, where the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand a removed state court case, and it must dismiss a case, originallyfiled in federal court
• reversing district court’s order remanding a consolidated case, and explaining “the district court should have remanded the removed case to state court and dismissed the case [plaintiff] originally filed in federal court”
• remanding with instructions to determine whether Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate where the district court denied sanctions solely on the improper basis of “the extent to which [defendant] would or would not be prejudiced”
• Rule 11 now “seeks to discourage pleadings without factual foundation, even though the paper was not filed in subjective bad faith”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).