Robert E. Kelly Virginia L. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, 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 9 a dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice
• explaining that 28 where the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the claims should be dismissed without 1 prejudice
• stating that, “because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the claims should have been dismissed without prejudice.”
• finding that “loss of enjoyment” is “precisely the type of relief potentially available under state law but not under the [MMWA],” since it is an “injury to the person”
• holding “because [plaintiff] failed to satisfy the Magnuson–Moss Act’s $50,000 jurisdictional prerequisite, there were no claims in the action within [its] original jurisdiction to form the basis for supplemental jurisdiction”
• explaining that dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).