D.C. Circuit· 5/28/2010

Shaw v. Marriott International, Inc.

Citations

605 F.3d 1039
390 U.S. App. D.C. 422
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10969
2010 WL 2134277

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).

Judges: Sentelle, Griffith, Kavanaugh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Shaw v. Marriott International, Inc.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.