During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Academy of Country Music v. Continental Casualty Co. (9th Cir. 2021)

The district court's transmittal of its remand order to the state court from which the action had been removed does not deprive the Court of Appeals of appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order.  Also, 28 USC 1447(d) does not block review unless the remand is granted on one of the grounds allowed under 28 USC 1447(c)--i.e., lack of subject… Read More

Brownback v. King (2021)

Ordinarily, a judgment dismissing a case on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over is not a judgment on the merits and does not operate as res judicata.  However, in the unique context of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the complaint plausibly alleges all six elements of an FTCA… Read More

Capra v. Capra (2020)

"Jurisdiction" is a term with many meanings.  As used in Probate Code 17000, jurisdiction does not refer to fundamental jurisdiction of the subject matter, nor to in personal, in rem, or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.  Instead, that section simply provides that probate matters are to be heard in the superior court's probate division rather than its normal civil courts.  The section does… Read More

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.

The sue-and-be-sued provision in Fannie Mae's statutory charter does not confer federal jurisdiction over suits against Fannie Mae or allow it to remove those suits to federal court absent some other basis for federal jurisdiction.  Read More

NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction if complete diversity actually existed when the complaint was filed, even if the complaint failed to allege it properly, so the district court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate a summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the plaintiff submitted evidence of complete diversity in opposition.  Read More

Polo v. Innoventions International, LLC

When, on a summary judgment motion in a case removed from state court, a federal court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacks Article III standing, the federal court should remand the case to state court, not dismiss it.  Read More