28 U.S.C. § 1359
Parties collusively joined or made
A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 461
cases (98 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978).
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978). “In the case of such collusion, of which there is absolutely no indication here, [5] the court can dismiss the action under the authority of 28 U. S. C. § 1359 . [6] In the absence of such collusion, there is no reason to adopt an absolute rule prohibiting the plaintiff from…”
Margaret M. Krier-Hawthorne v. Thomas L. Beam & L. Wallace Sink, Adm'r of the Est. of Joseph Krier, Deceased, 728 F.2d 658 (4th Cir. 1984). “But the rule stated in Mecom is tempered by 28 U.S.C. § 1359 , which denies jurisdiction if a party “has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke” jurisdiction.”
The Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson, 793 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2015). “violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1359 . Florida Branson Label argues that the district court erred by adopting the wrong legal test for determining collusion.”
McCulloch v. Velez-Malave, 364 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004). “at 363 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1359 ). Only then did the court revert to the original grounds raised in the motion to dismiss; it concluded that, stripped of the assignment, Man-dorico would become an indispensable party (whose joinder would destroy diversity) and/or the plaintiffs…”
Navarro Sav. Assn. v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980). “That the trust may depart from conventional forms in other respects has no bearing upon this determination.”
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1359 ; see also Navarro Sav. Ass’n v.”
Bank of Am. Corp. v. Lemgruber, 385 F. Supp. 2d 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “f Edge Act jurisdiction is not met because the Edge Act Plaintiffs are not the “true parties in interest” with respect to the breach of contract claim since the indemnity and warranty provisions in the 1998 Stock Purchase Agreement which give them the right to sue for breach of…”
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005). “No party here has been “improperly or collusively” named solely to create federal jurisdiction, see 28 U. S. C. § 1359 (“A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or…”
Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Good, 689 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2012). “Congress has provided: “A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”
Bestwall LLC v. Off. Comm. of Asbestos, 71 F.4th 168 (4th Cir. 2023). “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1359 , federal courts do not have jurisdiction over civil actions “in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”
Prudential Oil Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 546 F.2d 469 (2d Cir. 1976). “We hold that because the material undisputed facts show that the assignment served only the function of creating an appearance of diversity jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a legitimate business reason for the transfer, the complaint must be dismissed for…”
Kelli Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. Mississippi Dep't of Transp., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004). “28 U.S.C. § 1359 . Section 1359 reads in full: "A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.