Civ Pro 3

Front 1

A court needs both

Back 1

Territorial and subject matter jx

Front 2

What is territorial jx?

Back 2

Territorial jx is the authority of a court to require a person/thing to submit to binding adjudication--which can be waived

Front 3

What is subject matter jx?

Back 3

is the authority of a court to adjudicate a particular type of suit. The state superior court is capable of hearing any dispute brought before it, a court of general jx

Front 4

Federal courts:

Back 4

Are courts of limited jx, and capable of hearing only those disputes for which jx is specifically conferred by both the C and federal statute. Federal courts have subject matter jx because of nature of law involved, or because of the identity of the parties. I.e. 1331=plaintiff asserts a claim based on federal law. 1332=in which P and D are citizens of diverse states. Unlike territorial jx, subject matter jx cannot be waived.

Front 5

Concurrent jx:

Back 5

Usually state courts have concurrent jx over all cases based on federal law, unless CS has explicitly provided exclusive jx. Federal courts have concurrent jx with the state so long as there is basis for federal subject matter jx

Front 6

Federal Question Jx and the Well pleaded complaint rule:

Back 6

Mottley: P may not anticipate a federal defense by the D in her complaint and use that defense as a basis for federal jx. The case must "arise under" federal law, meaning that the P's c/a depends on it.
a. counter-claim: A counterclaim that states a claim under federal law does not "arise" under federal law for purposes of federal trial court jx-b/c a counterclaim appears as part of D's answer, not part of P's complaint=it does not arise under"
b. Only applies to original jx--not appellate. Title 28 1257: Confers jx whenever a question of federal law may be dispositive of the case.

Front 7

Federal Question and Merrell Dow v. Thompson:

Back 7

The mere presence of a fed issue in a state c/a does not automatically confer federal question jx--despite a well-pleaded complaint.

Front 8

What is the Subject Matter Jx test we saw in Merrell?

Back 8

In outline

Front 9

Talk about 1441b with respect to Merrell and Federal question jx

Back 9

Removal: No reason for a resident D to have right to take case to a federal court, because presumably he does not need "protection" from his own state's court.

Front 10

Talk about declaratory judgments and the well-pleaded complaint rule with respect to federal question jx

Back 10

Title 28 2201: P can request from a federal district court a declaration of rights “in case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction. A declaratory judgment suit is used to obtain an early judicial determination of rights. A P in a declaratory judgment suit is thus often someone who would have been a defendant had she simply gone ahead with her contemplated acts. (pg 363).

Front 11

Now, we're on to Diversity and 1332

Back 11

1332: Complete diversity
a. for the protection of out-of-state litigants
b. provide for a nationwide system of courts in which important commercial disputes could be adjudicated an a uniform system of law applied

Front 12

Mas v. Perry and Diversity

Back 12

For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient. A person's domicile is "his true fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent there from." A change in domicile may be effected only by the combination of taking up residence in a different domicile with the intention to remain there

Front 13

Intricacies of Mas, marrying an alien

Back 13

don't lose US citizenship solely by reason to alien...similarly, a woman does not have her domicile or state citizenship changed solely by reason of her marriage to an alien

Front 14

Intricacies of Mas, amount in controversy requirement:

Back 14

is determined by the amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith. Federal jurisdiction is not lost because a judgment of less than the jurisdictional amount is awarded.

Front 15

Can an American citizen domiciled abroad use 1332

Back 15

Nope, it requires citizenship of a state

Front 16

An alien can 1332 in 2 ways

Back 16

i. 1332a2: suits between citzens of a state and "citizens or subjects of a foreign state.
ii. 1332a: an alien admitted for permanent residence in the US is deemed a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled.

Front 17

Still in Diversity, talk about a corporation's citizenship, this came up in Mas

Back 17

A corp is treated as a citizen of both of its state of incorporation and its principal place of business.
i. May be incorporated in more than one state (REALLY???)
ii. Principal place of business:
1. Where the corp carries on its primary production or serivce activities
2. Where the corp's administrative office or "nerver center" is located
iii. An unincorporated association is a citizen of all states in which the members are citizens.

Front 18

New topic under diversity, complete diversity:

Back 18

No shared citizenship between any P and any D)
a. 1332: Complete diversity means that all the Ps must be of a different citizenship from all the D. If all the P are citizens of CA, and all the D are citizens of NV and IL, there is complete diversity, however, if a citizen of CA is joined as a D...complete diversity is destroyed and jx under 1332 is defeated.

Front 19

Talk about Rule 21, which is subsection of complete diveristy

Back 19

Rule 21: A district court may dismiss the defendant who could defeat diversity in order to preserve its jurisdiction, at the sound discretion of the district judge, and is permissible so long as the defendant is not an “indispensable party under Rule 19. (Joinder/removal – for just adjudication)

Front 20

Talk about Multiparty, Multi-forum Trial Jurisdiction Act 2002, another subsection of complete diversity

Back 20

(1369 and 1441(e)): Gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil suits arising from a single accident in which at least 75 people have dies, provided certain multi-state elements are present – only MINIMAL diversity is required.
i.However, the district court must abstain form hearing the suit if “the substantial majority of all plaintiffs are citizens of a single state of which the primary defendants are also citizens; and the claims asserted will be governed primarily by the laws of that state.

Front 21

New section under diversity, Amt in Controversy:

Back 21

Today is 75k

Front 22

Still in amount in controversy, talk about a) legal certainty test:

Back 22

Requires a defendant opposing jurisdiction to prove to a “legal certainty” that the plaintiff cannot recover damages in excess of $75,000.

Front 23

Still in amount in controversy (aic), talk about b) injunctions, and P or D viewpoint:

Back 23

the dollar amount at stake may be hard to calculate, AND the value to P and the cost to D may be different.
i.Generally: The amount is satisfied when viewed form either P or D’s viewpoint.

Front 24

Still in aic, talk about c) aggregation of claims:

Back 24

Generally, P can aggregate all claims brought in a single complaint – even if the causes of action are unrelated to one another in order to satisfy the jurisdictional amount.
i.However, multiple P cannot aggregate their claims to satisfy $75,000.

Front 25

Still in aic, talk about d) counter claims:

Back 25

Amounts sought in permissive counterclaims under Rule 13(b) are not considered part of the amount in controversy. The same is generally so under Rule 13(a).

Front 26

1359 is under diversity, why?

Back 26

Assignment or joinder of parties may not be done improperly or collusively in order to invoke jurisdiction.

Front 27

What does diversity not include?

Back 27

Diversity does not include probate proceedings or domestic relations suits seeking divorce or alimony, or child custody decrees.

Front 28

Cannot do what as far as removal is concerned

Back 28

Remove from Federal to state court

Front 29

Talk about United Mineworkers v. Gibbs with respect to supp jx

Back 29

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs: The attachment of a state claim for damages can be upheld in federal court when the federal claim has been dropped, when the federal issues are not so remote or minor that in effect the state claim was only tried. The Taft-Hartly Act created a cause of action under federal and state law. When the state claim is so closely related to a federal claim it must be filed in federal court with the federal claim = Pendant Jurisdiction
a.The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.
b.The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact…. However if considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff’s judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole claim.
c.P would expect that the claims would be tried as one proceeding.

Front 30

Still in supp jx, talk about doctrine of discretion vs. P's right:

Back 30

a.If federal claims are dismissed before trial – even though not insubstantial, the state claims need to be dismissed as well.
b.If state claims predominate, proof, scope of issues, remedy, the state claims must be dismissed.

Front 31

Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 18a

Back 31

Joinder of Claims: A part asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime as the party has against an opposing party.

Front 32

Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 12b

Back 32

Pleadings and motions: filing in responsive pleading or by motion for every defense in law or fact to a claim.

Front 33

Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 12b6

Back 33

motion for defense due to a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
a.Lack of 12(b)(1): Lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction – if the federal claim had been dismissed on this basis there is not jurisdiction over a state claim that was attached to it.
b.Warning Rule 12 (h)(3): “Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defenses.” Challenging jurisdiction to negate jurisdiction.

Front 34

Still in supp jx, talk about Owen Equipment and Erection v. Kroger

Back 34

When a third-party defendant is impleaded by the original defendant, and the original defendant is granted summary judgment, complete diversity must exist for subject matter jurisdiction under 1332(a)(1), even if a defendant was originally impleaded by another defendant.

Front 35

Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 14a

Back 35

Provides supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party impleader according to 1332 –

Front 36

Still in supp jx, what the modern notion of judicial efficiency?

Back 36

that a court should resolve as much as reasonably possible in a single proceeding:

Front 37

Still in supp jx, what does rule 20 do?

Back 37

allows all persons to join as co-parties who assert aright to relief arising out of the same transaction, so long as their claims share a common question of law or fact. (a) All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs… All persons may be joined in one action as defendants only so long as the claims arise out of the same, or same series of transactions…

Front 38

Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 13a or b

Back 38

require a defendant to assert “compulsory” counterclaims against a plaintiff, and permit a defendant to assert “permissive” counter claims (a pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s , depending on the relationship between the counterclaim and the plaintiff’s claim.

Front 39

Still in supp jx, what does 13g allow?

Back 39

Rule 13(g): permits co-parties to cross-claim against each other.

Front 40

Still in supp jx, what about 14a?

Back 40

allows a defendant to bring in as a third-party defendant a person who is or may be liable to the defendant for the claim asserted against the defendant by the plaintiff. Still need diversity between a defendant and a third party to be impleaded in federal courts. However the court can still exercise ancillary jurisdiction because it arises out of the same claim. (last two sentences in blue b/c CF added???)

Front 41

Still in supp jx, what about rule 24a and b?

Back 41

allow parties to intervene in existing suits either “as a right” or “permissively” depending on the strength of their interest in the litigation into which they seek to intervene.

Front 42

Still in Supp jx, what about rule 82?

Back 42

makes explicit, the “rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the US district courts.”… such that, if the federal rules would permit a claim or party to be joined but the jurisdictional statutes do not permit it, the federal rules must give way.