Donald J. Willy v. Coastal Corporation, et al. (503 U.S. 131)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 3, 1992 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 503 U.S. 131 · 112 S. Ct. 1076
- Decided
- March 3, 1992
- Term
- October Term 1991
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the- opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to decide whether a federal district court may impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a case in which the district court is later determined to be without subject-matter jurisdiction. 501 U. S. 1216 (1991). We conclude that in the circumstances presented here it may do so. Petitioner Willy sued respondent Coastal Corporation (Coastal or respondent) in Texas state court, raising a variety of claims relating to Coastal’s decision to terminate his employment as “in-house” counsel. Petitioner alleged that he had been fired due to his refusal to participate in respondent’s violation of various federal and state environmental laws. Respondent removed the case- to Federal District Court, claiming original federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331,1441. Petitioner objected to the removal, claiming that his case did not “arise under” federal law, see § 1331, but the District Court disagreed and concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction. .The District Court subsequently granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), and dismissed petitioner’s pendent state claims. At the same time, the District Court granted respondent’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, awarding attorney’s fees of $22,625…
Excerpt of a 15,289-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.