Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist · ¶19

It is important to emphasize at the outset “two `givens' in this case.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 70 (1996). First, no party asks this Court to revisit the Fifth Circuit's holding that the District Court's improper-joinder decision was incorrect and that Whole Foods should not have been dismissed. See Brief for Petitioners 7, n. 1. Second, no party disputes that, had the District Court performed the joinder analysis correctly when the case was initially removed, it would have lacked jurisdiction and would have been required to remand the case to state court. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332(a), 1447(c). What remains for this Court to decide is whether the District Court, having erroneously dismissed Whole Foods, had jurisdiction to enter a final judgment as to Hain. It did not.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.