Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage (14-1055)

argument 14-1055

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the phrase “court of competent jurisdiction”?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case fourteen ten fifty five, Lightfoot versus Sendant Mortgage

Erin Rosencrantz 0:05

Corporation. Rosencranz. Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. There is only one natural way to read the language at issue here. A court of competent jurisdiction is a court that has an independent source of subject matter jurisdiction. That is what this court has held five times those words mean. So let's start with the plain language. The statute grants Freddie, quote, the power in its corporate name to sue and be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal. The only reference to jurisdiction in that passage is to say that you don't get. yet to go to any federal court or any state court, but rather you have to choose a court, State or Federal, that must be a court of competent jurisdiction.

Erin Rosencrantz 1:02

And the only way to find out whether a court is a court of competent jurisdiction is to examine the statutes creating that court and granting it jurisdiction.

Samuel A. Alito 1:14

Does that include uh you you said subject matter jurisdiction, but is this court competent to hear this controversy would include personal jurisdiction as well, or are you limiting it to subject matter jurisdiction?

Erin Rosencrantz 1:28

I I am not limiting it to subject matter jurisdiction. I would I would hasten to add, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over an original action. It has appellate, you know, it has cert jurisdiction. But no, a court of competent jurisdiction, at a minimum, has subject matter jurisdiction, but I think it also has personal jurisdiction. And the the cases that my friends rely on Rely upon at Fannie that talk about personal jurisdiction are cases in which there was already subject matter jurisdiction, and this court held, hold on, wait a minute, it's not enough just to have subject matter jurisdiction, which everyone agreed there was in those cases. It needs to be personal jurisdiction.

Erin Rosencrantz 2:12

Now, five times this court has interpreted the words competent jurisdiction. Yeah. to mean, quote, outsiz outside sources of jurisdictional authority. That's from Phoenix or from Shoshone. This court held that any reference to competent jurisdiction, excuse me, that a reference to competent jurisdiction means, and I quote, it unquestionably meant that the competency of the court should be determined by rules theretofore prescribed described in respect to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. And Fanny's interpretation simply does not map onto the statutory language that Congress wrote. Look at the sentence. Fanny's interpretation would require the court to read the phrase competent jurisdiction to mean different things depending upon which word modifies it.

Erin Rosencrantz 3:08

So Fan Fanny concedes. that the clause referring to any court of competent jurisdiction state cannot be read as a grant of jurisdiction to every state court. A state court can't take jurisdiction unless you point to a statutory authority for the state.

Samuel A. Alito 3:27

What do what do you do What what does Justice Suter's statement in Red Cross due to your argument. I mean I'm I'm talking about the statement on page two fifty seven of Red Cross in expressly authorizing suit in federal court. uh provision extends beyond a grant of corporate capacity to sue. And suffices to confer a federal jurisdiction. That seems to say if you authorize suit in f in a federal court And then that's it. The the mm specifically mentioning federal court. Suffices to confer Federal Jurisdiction.

Erin Rosencrantz 4:15

Understood, uh Justice Ginsburg. And and I think the way to look at Red Cross is to look at what Red Cross referred to as the rule that Justice Souter was describing. The rule is, and I quote, a congressional charters sue and be sued provision may be read to confer federal jurisdiction if But only if it specifically mentions the Federal Courts. So you need a mention of Federal Courts in order to even have a conversation about whether the May is in play. But a fet reference to federal courts is not sufficient. And so another way to think about it is, sure, if a clause says sue or be sued in any court, state or federal, Red Cross tells us that without more is a grant of federal jurisdiction.