Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Atlas Global Group v. Grupo Dataflux, 01-20245 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-20245 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 375 F.3d 1218 ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, L.P., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, and Oscar Robles-Canon, officer with Atlas Global Group; Francisco Llamosa, officer with Atlas Global Group, Counter Defendants-Appellants, v. GRUPO DATAFLUX, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee. No. 01-20245. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 28, 2004. Roger B. Greenberg (argued), Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, Houston, TX, for Atlas Global Group, LP, Robles-Canon and Llamosa. William Joseph
More

375 F.3d 1218

ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, L.P., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, and
Oscar Robles-Canon, officer with Atlas Global Group; Francisco Llamosa, officer with Atlas Global Group, Counter Defendants-Appellants,
v.
GRUPO DATAFLUX, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

No. 01-20245.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 28, 2004.

Roger B. Greenberg (argued), Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, Houston, TX, for Atlas Global Group, LP, Robles-Canon and Llamosa.

William Joseph Boyce (argued), Julie H. Tellepsen, Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, TX, Mark Allen Robertson, Fulbright & Jaworski, New York City, for Grupo Dataflux.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; Frances H. Stacy, United States Magistrate Judge.

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(Opinion Nov. 22, 2002, 5th Cir.2002, 312 F.3d 168)

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court by an Opinion entered May 17, 2004, in ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 1920, 158 L. Ed. 2d 866, 2004 WL 1085232, 2004 D.A.R. 5878, held that a party's postfiling change in citizenship resulting in complete diversity cannot cure a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction that existed at the time of filing in a diversity action, and therefore reversed the judgment of this Court which had reversed the action of the district court. Accordingly, we vacate the prior decision of this Court (312 F.3d 168) and remand this case to the district court for entry of an order dismissing this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer