576
Syllabus
matter determination. For example, if a federal court concludes that state law does not allow damages sufficient to meet the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a), and remands to the state court on that basis, the federal court's ruling on permissible state-law damages may bind the parties in state court. Most essentially, federal and state courts are complementary systems for administering justice. Cooperation and comity, not competition and conflict, are essential to the federal design. A State's dignitary interest bears consideration when a district court exercises discretion in a case of this order. If personal jurisdiction raises difficult questions of state law, and subject-matter jurisdiction is resolved as easily as personal jurisdiction, a district court will ordinarily conclude that federalism concerns tip the scales in favor of initially ruling on the motion to remand. In other cases, however, the district court may find that overriding concerns of judicial economy and restraint warrant immediate dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The federal design allows leeway for sensitive judgments of this sort. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 44. Pp. 585-587. (c) In most instances, subject-matter jurisdiction will involve no arduous inquiry, and both expedition and sensitivity to state courts' coequal stature should impel the federal court to dispose of that issue first. Where, as here, however, a district court has before it a straightforward personal jurisdiction issue presenting no complex state-law question, and the alleged defect in subject-matter jurisdiction raises a difficult and novel question, the court does not abuse its discretion by turning directly to personal jurisdiction. Pp. 587-588.
145 F. 3d 211, reversed and remanded.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Charles Alan Wright argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Ben H. Sheppard, Jr., Harry M. Reasoner, Guy S. Lipe, and Arthur R. Miller. Clifton T. Hutchinson argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were J. Gregory Taylor, David J. Schenck, and David L. Shapiro.*
*Brian J. Serr filed a brief for the Conference of Chief Justices as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007