Amy Coney Barrett Questions Lawyer on Appealing Fraudulent Joinder in Supreme Court

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• ⚖️ Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned an attorney regarding the appeal of fraudulent joinder rulings during oral arguments for Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist.
• 🎯 The case concerns issues of diversity jurisdiction in lawsuits.

Caterpillar Precedent and Joinder

• ❓ Barrett pressed the lawyer on whether the precedent set by Caterpillar clearly resolved the question at hand, suggesting a "wait and see" approach to appealing.
• 💡 The attorney argued that Caterpillar does not resolve the specific question of whether a jurisdictional defect, if uncured at final judgment, requires vacature.
• ✅ However, the attorney asserted that Caterpillar does squarely resolve the question of preservation, stating that a party raising a jurisdictional objection has preserved their right to ultimate appeal.

Preclusion and Practical Litigation

• 💬 The attorney addressed Justice Jackson's questions about preclusion, calling it a controversial question and stating they would not concede that preclusion would lie.
• ⚠️ Arguments against preclusion included exceptions under state law due to the nature of the jurisdictional ruling and potential differences in sufficiency evaluation between state and federal law.
• 🚀 The reason for not taking an immediate appeal was not only reliance on the right to seek review after final judgment but also the practical approach of litigants making their best arguments, preserving positions, and moving forward with the case on the merits.