Fusspots and Nitpickers

Judge Posner wonders whether the 7th Circuit is these for requiring complete jurisdictional statements in a diversity case. He doesn’t think so, because:

. . . the fact that limits on subject matter jurisdiction are not waivable or forfeitable — that federal courts are required to police their jurisdiction — imposes a duty of care that we are not at liberty to shirk. And since we are not investigative bodies, we need and must assure compliance with procedures designed to compel parties to federal litigation to assist us in keeping within bounds.

So don’t short FRAP 28 if you don’t want to be called on the carpet, and maybe ordered to take a class on federal jurisdiction.

Judge Evans thought the problems with the jurisdictional statements were “low misdemeanors,” not the felonies the majority saw.

See the whole opinion in Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America And here is Howard Bashman’s (How Appealing blogger) opinion piece in Law.Com suggesting that Judges Posner and Easterbrook may well be fussing and nitpicking.