Sharon Palkow v. Csx Transportation, Inc., Harry Crawford and Diane Tavares

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that district court required “an independent statutory basis” to exercise jurisdiction over claim framed as Rule 60 motion or independent action
• noting that the Supreme Court has “largely limit[ed] its finding of complete preemption to a handful of federal statutes, the most widely recognized of these being the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (‘LMRA’
• “Being without jurisdiction, the District Court could not, and we cannot, address the merits of Plaintiff's complaint.”
• finding Rule 60-like claims fall under federal jurisdiction where the plaintiff is only seeking relief from judgment
• “The only ‘federal’ aspect of Plaintiffs civil perjury claim is the fact that the alleged perjury occurred in a federal court action. There is no ‘federal question’ that needs to be resolved in order to resolve Plaintiffs state-law claim.”
• subject matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).