U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 85— DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 1369

Multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action involving minimal diversity between adverse parties that arises from a single accident, where at least 75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location, if—(1) a defendant resides in a State and a substantial part of the accident took place in another State or other location, regardless of whether that defendant is also a resident of the State where a substantial part of the accident took place;(2) any two defendants reside in different States, regardless of whether such defendants are also residents of the same State or States; or(3) substantial parts of the accident took place in different States.(b)Limitation of Jurisdiction of District Courts.—The district court shall abstain from hearing any civil action described in subsection (a) in which—(1) the substantial majority of all plaintiffs are citizens of a single State of which the primary defendants are also citizens; and(2) the claims asserted will be governed primarily by the laws of that State.(c)Special Rules and Definitions.—For purposes of this section—(1) minimal diversity exists between adverse parties if any party is a citizen of a State and any adverse party is a citizen of another State, a citizen or subject of a foreign state, or a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title;(2) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of any State, and a citizen or subject of any foreign state, in which it is incorporated or has its principal place of business, and is deemed to be a resident of any State in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business;(3) the term “injury” means—(A) physical harm to a natural person; and(B) physical damage to or destruction of tangible property, but only if physical harm described in subparagraph (A) exists;(4) the term “accident” means a sudden accident, or a natural event culminating in an accident, that results in death incurred at a discrete location by at least 75 natural persons; and(5) the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.(d)Intervening Parties.—In any action in a district court which is or could have been brought, in whole or in part, under this section, any person with a claim arising from the accident described in subsection (a) shall be permitted to intervene as a party plaintiff in the action, even if that person could not have brought an action in a district court as an original matter.(e)Notification of Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.—A district court in which an action under this section is pending shall promptly notify the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation of the pendency of the action.(Added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, § 11020(b)(1)(A), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1826.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, § 11020(c), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1829, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (b) [enacting this section and sections 1697 and 1785 of this title and amending sections 1391 and 1441 of this title] shall apply to a civil action if the accident giving rise to the cause of action occurred on or after the 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 2, 2002].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Passa v. Derderian, 308 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.R.I. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Passa v. Derderian, 308 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.R.I. 2004). · cites it 11× “In each of the five cases described above, jurisdiction in federal court is alleged under a new statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1369 , popularly known as the Multiparty, Multiforum, Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (“MMTJA”).”
Wallace v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins., 444 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Petitioners contend that they meet the requirements of § 1441(e)(1)(B) because they are parties to a separate class action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1369 (“the Chehardy action”) which arises from the same accident (Hurricane Katrina) as the instant case.”
Laukus v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “However, § 1391(g) is clearly inapplicable because it only governs venue in cases where the *127 jurisdiction of the district court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1369 , which deals with multiparty, multiforum litigation.”
Abraham v. WPX Prod. Prods., LLC, 317 F.R.D. 169 (D.N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 1407 ; (iv) multiparty multiforum litigation, see 28 U.S.C. § 1369 ; and (v) the use of bellwether cases.”
Case v. ANPAC Louisiana Ins., 466 F. Supp. 2d 781 (E.D. La. 2006). · cites it 13× “Under Section 1441(e)(1)(B), an action is removable if (1) the defendant in the action to be removed is also party to an action pending in a district court that could have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1369 , and (2) the action to be removed' arises from the same accident as…”
del Rosario Ortega v. Star Kist, 370 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “1758 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1369 ) (granting the district courts original jurisdiction over “any civil action involving minimal diversity” between adverse parties arising from any single accident in which 75 natural persons died, and further defining “minimal diversity” in the…”
Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, 306 F.R.D. 312 (D.N.M. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 1407 ; (iv) multipar *407 ty multiforum litigation, see 28 U.S.C. § 1369 ; and (v) the use of bellwether cases.”
Mariko L.A. Bennett v. Sw. Airlines Co., the Boeing Co., & City of Chicago, 484 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2007). “Those lines would be rendered meaningless if, as defendants maintain, every aviation case is federal.”
Bustillos v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 310 F.R.D. 631 (D.N.M. 2016). “§ 1407 ; (iv) multiparty multiforum litigation, see 28 U.S.C. § 1369 ; and (v) the use of bellwether cases.”
Jane Pettitt v. Boeing Co., 606 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Removal was effected under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTJA), which, subject to certain conditions, grants district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising from a single accident involving at least 75 fatalities, where minimal diversity…”
Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 463 F. Supp. 2d 583 (E.D. La. 2006). · cites it 3× “§ 1442 (a)(1), as LifeCare was a person acting under color of federal authority and has colorable defenses to the Plaintiffs’ claims; (b) the case falls under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act, (“MMTJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1369 , as it involves minimal diversity and a…”
St. Bernard Par. v. Lafarge North Am., Inc., 914 F.3d 969 (5th Cir. 2019). “4 28 U.S.C. § 1369 . 5 Sommers v. Bank of Am.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1369(c) — 1 case
Passa v. Derderian, 308 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.R.I. 2004). “In each of the five cases described above, jurisdiction in federal court is alleged under a new statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1369 , popularly known as the Multiparty, Multiforum, Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (“MMTJA”).”
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.