Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/42

Click to flip

42 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
A court needs both
Territorial and subject matter jx
What is territorial jx?
Territorial jx is the authority of a court to require a person/thing to submit to binding adjudication--which can be waived
What is subject matter jx?
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
Federal courts:
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.
Concurrent jx:
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
Federal Question Jx and the Well pleaded complaint rule:
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.
Federal Question and Merrell Dow v. Thompson:
The mere presence of a fed issue in a state c/a does not automatically confer federal question jx--despite a well-pleaded complaint.
What is the Subject Matter Jx test we saw in Merrell?
In outline
Talk about 1441b with respect to Merrell and Federal question jx
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.
Talk about declaratory judgments and the well-pleaded complaint rule with respect to federal question jx
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).
Now, we're on to Diversity and 1332
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
Mas v. Perry and Diversity
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
Intricacies of Mas, marrying an alien
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
Intricacies of Mas, amount in controversy requirement:
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.
Can an American citizen domiciled abroad use 1332
Nope, it requires citizenship of a state
An alien can 1332 in 2 ways
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.
Still in Diversity, talk about a corporation's citizenship, this came up in Mas
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.
New topic under diversity, complete diversity:
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.
Talk about Rule 21, which is subsection of complete diveristy
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)
Talk about Multiparty, Multi-forum Trial Jurisdiction Act 2002, another subsection of complete diversity
(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.
New section under diversity, Amt in Controversy:
Today is 75k
Still in amount in controversy, talk about a) legal certainty test:
Requires a defendant opposing jurisdiction to prove to a “legal certainty” that the plaintiff cannot recover damages in excess of $75,000.
Still in amount in controversy (aic), talk about b) injunctions, and P or D viewpoint:
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.
Still in aic, talk about c) aggregation of claims:
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.
Still in aic, talk about d) counter claims:
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).
1359 is under diversity, why?
Assignment or joinder of parties may not be done improperly or collusively in order to invoke jurisdiction.
What does diversity not include?
Diversity does not include probate proceedings or domestic relations suits seeking divorce or alimony, or child custody decrees.
Cannot do what as far as removal is concerned
Remove from Federal to state court
Talk about United Mineworkers v. Gibbs with respect to supp jx
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.
Still in supp jx, talk about doctrine of discretion vs. P's right:
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.
Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 18a
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.
Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 12b
Pleadings and motions: filing in responsive pleading or by motion for every defense in law or fact to a claim.
Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 12b6
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.
Still in supp jx, talk about Owen Equipment and Erection v. Kroger
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.
Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 14a
Provides supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party impleader according to 1332 –
Still in supp jx, what the modern notion of judicial efficiency?
that a court should resolve as much as reasonably possible in a single proceeding:
Still in supp jx, what does rule 20 do?
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…
Still in supp jx, talk about Rule 13a or b
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.
Still in supp jx, what does 13g allow?
Rule 13(g): permits co-parties to cross-claim against each other.
Still in supp jx, what about 14a?
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???)
Still in supp jx, what about rule 24a and b?
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.
Still in Supp jx, what about rule 82?
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.