Amy Friedmann


This Note examines how these two policy decisions changed the landscape of diversity jurisdiction for limited partnerships and other unincorporated entities. It argues that, despite the Grupo majority's expressed rationale of adhering to time of filing precedent, a rule that requires complete diversity between parties to exist at the time of filing, the majority actually reaffirmed and clarified the scope of the Caterpillar exception to the time of filing rule. This Note further argues that the real impetus for the majority's decision was the fear that any tinkering with the bright-line rule of Carden, which requires courts to count the citizenship of all members of a limited partnership toward the partnership's citizenship for diversity, would undermine the Court's effort to pressure Congress into abolishing or severely curtailing diversity jurisdiction.10 Part II of this Note introduces the origins of diversity jurisdiction, how citizenship is determined for purposes of diversity, the time of filing rule and its exception, and the debate over diversity jurisdiction." Part III presents the facts, procedural history, and majority and dissenting opinions in the Grupo decision. Part IV analyzes the Court's reasoning and argues that the unincorporated association precedents were controlling to the case rather than the time of filing precedents, and discusses the practical effects of retaining Carden's bright line and arbitrary rule. Finally, Part V concludes that Congress should legislatively reform this unfair rule or the Court should use its power to do so.

Included in

Tax Law Commons