Metz v. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a federal court sitting in diversity in the District of Columbia has a “duty . . . to achieve the same outcome we believe would result if the District of Columbia Court of Appeals considered this case.”
• explaining that “the availability of [declaratory] relief presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable right”
• \[O]ne who chooses the federal courts in diversity actions is in a peculiarly poor position to seek certification\ (cleaned up)
• “[I]t is a well-established rule that the Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction.” (quoting Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 11 F.3d 762, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2011))
• “We have also certified where we found the question to be on a matter of public importance, in which the [state] has a substantial interest, without insisting that the importance be extreme.”
• denying motion to certify because of forum-shopping concerns

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).