Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2750 Pizzo v. Bekin Van Lines Company, et al.

By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//

00-2750 Pizzo v. Bekin Van Lines Company, et al.

By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//

Listen to this article

“[T]he Carmack Amendment claim should not have been dismissed for failure to satisfy the minimum required amount in controversy. Since, however, it is merely a contingent claim, it does not provide a secure basis for retaining under the supplemental jurisdiction of the district court the plaintiff’s state-law claim for fraud. The tail would be wagging the dog if the district court ruled on the contingent federal claim before the plaintiff obtained a ruling on whether she can rescind the sale or used the contingent claim to lever her state-law fraud claim back into federal court. Yet to affirm the district court’s relinquishment of jurisdiction over that claim while reversing the dismissal of the Carmack Amendment claim would condemn the plaintiff to split her case against the Reznikoffs between two courts. The district court either should retain jurisdiction over the state-law fraud claim or, if it relinquishes it, should stay further proceedings on the Carmack Amendment until the state-law claim is resolved in the state court. We leave the choice to the district court to make on remand, and affirm its dismissal of the RICO claim.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Norgle, J., Posner, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests