This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sued D asserting various tort claims related to the manufacture and sale of a chlordimeform-based insecticide. Another action against D was already underway in the United States District Court. The Louisiana court stayed P's action when P successfully intervened in that suit and participated in the ensuing settlement. That settlement included a stipulation that P's action, 'including any and all claims . . . against Ds, shall be dismissed, with prejudice,' as of the approval date. In the Louisiana state court, P told the court that the settlement required the dismissal of only some of the claims. The Louisiana court relied upon that representation and invited P to amend the complaint and proceed with the action. Ds did not attend the hearing. Upon learning of the state court's action, Ds promptly removed the action to the Middle District of Louisiana relying on 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). The notice of removal asserted federal jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, § 1651, and under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, §1367. The Middle District granted under §1404(a), and the Alabama court then dismissed P as barred by the settlement and sanctioned P's counsel for his misrepresentation to the Louisiana state court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions but vacated the District Court's order dismissing the action. It held that §1441 by its terms authorizes removal only of actions over which the district courts have original jurisdiction. the All Writs Act authorizes writs 'in aid of [the courts'] respective jurisdictions' without providing any federal subject-matter jurisdiction in its own right. The Court of Appeals concluded the All Writs Act could not support removal.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.