No. 18-960

Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-01-24
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-1367 arbitration arbitration-agreement article-iii article-three case-or-controversy civil-procedure federal-court supplemental-jurisdiction third-party third-party-complaint
Latest Conference: 2019-02-22
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Whether a plaintiff loses their right to have all claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution heard in federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, solely because of the existence of an arbitration agreement between a third-party plaintiff and third-party defendant which the original plaintiff is not a signatory?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a plaintiff loses their right to have all claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution heard in federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, solely because of the existence of an arbitration agreement between a third-party plaintiff and third-party defendant which the original plaintiff is not a signatory?

Docket Entries

2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-01-25
Waiver of right of respondent BMO Harris Bank, N.A., to respond filed.
Main Document
2019-01-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2019)
Proof of ServiceCertificate of Word CountAppendixPetition

Attorneys

BMO Harris Bank, N.A.,
Robert Thomas Smith — Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Respondent
Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc.
Barbara Bison Jacobson — The Bison Jacobson Firm LLC, Petitioner