The following excerpt is from Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica De Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1994):
Because we conclude the district court did not have diversity jurisdiction, our jurisdiction is "not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit." United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440, 56 S.Ct. 829, 831, 80 L.Ed. 1263 (1936). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to interpret the agreements or their provision for attorney's fees.
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.