Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, 899 F.3d 24

Background

SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda), an unincorporated association advocating for LGBTI rights in Uganda, sued Scott Lively in D. Mass. asserting an Alien Tort Statute (ATS) claim and pendent state-law claims; complaint also alleged diversity jurisdiction.
The district court denied Lively's initial 12(b) motion in 2013, the parties engaged in discovery, and Lively later moved for summary judgment.
On summary judgment the district court dismissed the ATS claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Kiobel/extraterritoriality rationale) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
Lively (the prevailing party below) appealed, seeking (among other relief) deletion of unflattering statements in the district court's opinion, a holding that diversity jurisdiction supported federal adjudication of the state-law claims, and reversal of the 2013 denial of his Rule 12(b) motion.
The First Circuit considered appellate jurisdictional limits (final-judgment rule and dicta), applied judicial estoppel to bar Lively from asserting diversity jurisdiction on appeal because he had denied it below, and reviewed the district court's discretionary refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals can order excision of unflattering dicta from the district court opinion	SMUG: N/A (SMUG prevailed below)	Lively: Appellate court should purge disparaging statements and vacate any adverse language	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; statements were dicta and not reviewable on appeal by the prevailing party
Whether diversity jurisdiction remained available after ATS dismissal	SMUG: Lively had previously denied diversity below; diversity did not exist	Lively: Complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction so district court could have retained jurisdiction over state claims	Court applied judicial estoppel to bar Lively from asserting diversity on appeal because he had consistently denied it below; Lively cannot rely on a contradictory position to obtain jurisdiction
Whether district court abused discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing state-law claims without prejudice	SMUG: District court properly declined and dismissed without prejudice	Lively: District court should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction, adjudicated and dismissed state claims with prejudice	Affirmed: district court acted within broad discretion considering judicial economy, comity, novelty of state-law issues; dismissal without prejudice appropriate
Whether court of appeals can review the district court's 2013 denial of Rule 12(b) motion	SMUG: N/A	Lively: Earlier denial of 12(b) should be reversed	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the interlocutory 12(b) denial had no effect on the ultimate disposition and thus is unreviewable on this appeal

Key Cases Cited

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (U.S. 2013) (limits ATS extraterritorial reach)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (judgments by courts lacking subject-matter jurisdiction are nullities)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (framework for judicial estoppel)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1988) (considerations for declining supplemental jurisdiction)
Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1999) (final-judgment rule under 28 U.S.C. §1291)
Mathias v. WorldCom Techs., Inc., 535 U.S. 682 (U.S. 2002) (prevailing party cannot appeal unfavorable dicta in opinion)
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2011) (appellate resources not devoted to policing every word of lower courts)