First Circuit | The Issue Spotter

May 15, 2017

Lessons in Diversity Jurisdiction from the First Circuit

The importance of subject-matter jurisdiction is axiomatic in federal courts. Parties must either get to federal court via a federal question or on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Given the centrality of subject-matter jurisdiction, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) mandates that cases that lack subject-matter jurisdiction must be dismissed. Even when issues of subject-matter jurisdiction are thought to be settled, new concerns can be raised at any time and force the court to reverse itself. Such was the case in an April 27, 2017 case from the First Circuit. Rule 12(h)(3) enables litigants to raise challenges to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction at any time. As the First Circuit recently found in Hearts with Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick, “any time” can even mean after the trial and during the pendency of an appeal. The case’s subject-matter jurisdiction was predicated on the diversity of citizenship, as it raised state tort law issues, rather than a federal question. In the underlying action, the founder of an orphanage in Haiti brought suit against Paul Kendrick for defamation claiming that Kendrick had falsely accused him of sexually abusing the boys in the orphanage. Kendrick further accused Hearts with Haiti—a non-profit charity raising funds [read more]

April 9, 2017

Dairy Farmers & a Missing Comma: O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy

A missing comma caused much consternation over the meaning of a state’s employment laws at the First Circuit recently. In a March 13, 2017 decision, the appellate court worked overtime to analyze Maine’s Wage and Hour Law and a specific statutory exemption that would apply to drivers of enumerated food products. Specifically, this exemption noted that Maine’s overtime protection would not apply to workers involved in “[t]he canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods.” 26 M.R.S.A. § 664(3)(F) (emphasis added). The emphasized portion was the core of the dispute, and the court’s reasoning provides insights for lawyers arguing about ambiguity before the First Circuit. The delivery driver plaintiffs argued that the exemption referred to the packing, either for shipment or distribution, of perishable foods. They neither packed product for shipment nor packed it for distribution. As the drivers were involved with the delivery, not the packing of these foods, they claimed they fell outside the exemption and, therefore, were allowed to collect overtime pay. The dairy farm defendants were steamed and contended in opposition that the exemption referred to two distinct activities, either [read more]