The following excerpt is from Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, D.C. No. 3:01-cv-00718-JO, No. 10-36136 (9th Cir. 2013):
559 U.S. at 165 (holding that 17 U.S.C. 411(a) "does not speak in jurisdictional terms or refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts" (citation omitted)); Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454 (2004) (holding that "the filing deadline[] prescribed in Bankruptcy Rule[] 4004 . . . do[es] not delineate what cases bankruptcy courts are competent to adjudicate").34 These cases stand for the general proposition identified above: If the statutory text does not mandate dismissal as the consequence for noncompliance, the courts should not read the statute as having jurisdictional consequences (i.e. mandatory dismissal without exception).
Page 71
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.