Shaw v. Marriott International, 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 where the court lacks jurisdiction over one claim, section 1447(c) “does not require fecal of the entire case,” and the “federal court may hear the claims for which federal jurisdiction exists”
• noting that the “district court granted summary judgment for Marriott, mooting the motion for class certification”
• noting that “purpose is the touchstone of the CPPA’s definition of ‘consumer’ and that the statute does not reach transactions intended primarily to promote business or professional interests”
• explaining that 10 “read[ing] [the statute’s] provisions together” reveals that “purpose is the touchstone of the CPPA’s definition of ‘consumer’ and that the statute does not reach transactions intended primarily to promote business or professional interests”
• rejecting plaintiff’s argument for remand of entire case and stating that “[t]he federal court may hear the claims for which federal jurisdiction exists.”
• remanding- some claims where after removal, some plaintiffs, but not all, lacked standing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).