Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 96 F.4th 202

Five former customers of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., whose investments were lost, sued various entities after discovering the CEO's massive embezzlement scheme.
Plaintiffs' original federal and state claims (including claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and RICO) were dismissed by the district court—federal claims as time-barred, state claims without prejudice.
Several defendants (“Cross-Appealing Defendants”) moved for reconsideration, arguing—belatedly—that the court must retain jurisdiction over state claims under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
These CAFA-based motions were filed more than a month after the governing deadline.
The district court declined to entertain the untimely CAFA argument, distinguishing between objections to jurisdiction (which can be raised anytime) and invocation of jurisdiction, which can be forfeited if not raised timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether untimely invocation of federal subject-matter juris-	Not at issue on appeal; plaintiffs	District court must exercise CAFA jurisdiction over	Untimely invocation can be forfeited; district court did not abuse its discretion
diction (CAFA) obligates district courts to exercise it.	sought to keep the case dismissed.	state-law claims even if raised late.	in refusing to consider untimely CAFA-based motions.

Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697 (2d Cir. 2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction objections can be raised at any time)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction objections can be raised at any stage)
Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2009) (court has duty to dismiss sua sponte if lacking jurisdiction)
Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction does not involve convenience assessment)