Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories

Eleventh Circuit

Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories

72 F.3d 842, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 35980, 1995 WL 752127

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided December 20, 1995·No. 95-2138·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by class plaintiffs (“Appellants”) of an order denying their motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against Locator of Missing Heirs, Inc. (“Ap-pellee”), a non-party to the pending Antitrust action brought by Appellants against several manufacturers of infant formula. The district court denied Appellants’ motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

Appellants say the district court has subject' matter jurisdiction over this matter involving a non-party under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) or the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. * The district *843 court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter is a question of law reviewed de novo. Sea Vessel, Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F.3d 345 (11th Cir.1994).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal jurisdiction, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 & n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). Rule 23(d) is only a procedural law; it is not a grant of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

AFFIRMED.

*

Appellants propose the All Writs Act as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on *843 appeal. Appellants never raised this issue at trial and are foreclosed from raising it now. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 119-121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 3 F.3d 391, 395 (11th Cir.1993).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by class plaintiffs (“Appellants”) of an order denying their motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against Locator of Missing Heirs, Inc. (“Ap-pellee”), a non-party to the pending Antitrust action brought by Appellants against several manufacturers of infant formula. The district court denied Appellants’ motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

Appellants say the district court has subject' matter jurisdiction over this matter involving a non-party under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) or the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. * The district *843 court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter is a question of law reviewed de novo. Sea Vessel, Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F.3d 345 (11th Cir.1994).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal jurisdiction, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 & n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). Rule 23(d) is only a procedural law; it is not a grant of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

AFFIRMED.

*

Appellants propose the All Writs Act as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on *843 appeal. Appellants never raised this issue at trial and are foreclosed from raising it now. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 119-121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 3 F.3d 391, 395 (11th Cir.1993).

Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories, 72 F.3d 842, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 35980, 1995 WL 752127 (11th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

72 F.3d 842 (Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related