SUMMARY ORDER

Inhae Corporation appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Wexler, ./.), holding Inhae Corporation liable, on a theory of successor liability, for a judgment entered against the former owners of a nail salon in connection with Fair Labor Standards Act violations. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“[Ejvery federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review.” Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When the lower federal court lacks jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “We review the question of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo.” City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 126 (2d Cir. 2011).

Where a new substantive theory — here, successor liability — is advanced to establish liability as to a new party, some independent ground is necessary to assume federal jurisdiction over the claim. Epperson v. Entm’t Express, Inc., 242 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2001) (recognizing need for independent jurisdictional hook where a claim “raise[s] an independent controversy with a new party in an effort to shift liability”); see also Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 357, 116 S.Ct. 862, 133 L.Ed.2d 817 (1996). No such independent ground has been established here. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (“It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [a federal court’s] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction” (internal citations omitted)).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED so that the district court may DISMISS the complaint without prejudice. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Because the appeal has been decided, the mandate to issue forthwith, Inhae Corporation’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2) is moot and denied as such.