Civ Pro Rules

Front 1

28 USC § 1332(a)(1)

Back 1

creates federal court jurisdiction over “controversies between citizens of different states” and citizens of a state and foreign citizens (codifies Art III § 2)

Front 2

1. 28 USC § 1332(a)

Back 2

was amended in 1988 to provide that an alien admitted to the US for permanent residence is deemed a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled.

Front 3

§ 1332(c)(1)

Back 3

(Diversity is destroyed much more easily for corporations.)
1. All states where it is incorporated
2. Where it has principle place of business (only one principle place of business)
Corporation Principle Place of Business Tests:
a. nerve center—executive center of the corporation

b. Bulk-of-the-activity-test—where most activities are conducted
c. total activities test—use the nerve center unless all corporate activity is in a single state

Front 4

§ 1332(a)(1)

Back 4

1. amount must exceed $75,000 not counting interest and costs (must be $75,000.01)—does include punitive damages
2. π’s ultimate recovery is irrelevant to jurisdiction—§ 1332(b) may have to pick up the other side’s costs if the judgment is under $75K

Front 5

28 USC §1331

Back 5

The general federal question statute confers that a case must “arise under federal law” (federal statute or Const. claim)

Front 6

28 USC §1367

Back 6

Supplemental Jx

Front 7

§1367(a)

Back 7

when a federal court has proper original jurisdiction over a claim, it may hear all other claims that form part of the same “case or controversy” including cases involving joinder or intervention.
1. Original claim must support federal question jurisdiction
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs : π is a citizen of TN; Δ is a citizen of TN; π has two claims against the same Δ one is FQ the second is a state law claim (Pendent Jurisdiction)
• Claim #1 is a federal question (qualifies for federal court)
• Claim #2 does not invoke federal question because it’s based on state law and no diversity
• Supreme Court said federal court can hear Claim #2 because it has supplemental jurisdiction (pendant) over that claim because it “shares a common nucleus of operative fact” with Claim #1 (similar to “same transaction or occurrence”)
2. Federal and state claims must arise from the same nucleus of operative facts such that they can be tried in one proceeding.

Front 8

1367(c)

Back 8

Discretionary factors:

A. Done for judicial economy and fairness to the litigants (prejudicial)
B. TEST it when we see a non-federal claim
C. The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) Issue of state law cannot predominate over issue of federal law
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has orig jx, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

Front 9

§ 1367(b)

Back 9

Ancillary Jx:
Any civil action of which original jurisdiction founded on 1332 (diversity of citizenship), then district courts shall not have supplemental jx when exercising supplemental jx would be inconsistent with 1332.

Front 10

When is there no supplemental jx

Back 10

When original Jx is based on diversity: over claims by P’s against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24

Front 11

SUPPLEMENTAL JX TEST:

Back 11

a. Does § 1367(a) grant supplemental jurisdiction?
(1) Yes—if it meets the Gibbs test of “common nucleus of operative fact”
b. Does § 1367(b) remove supplemental jurisdiction?
c. if original jurisdiction is based on diversity: no supplemental jurisdiction over claims by π against persons joined as parties under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24

Front 12

§ 1441

Back 12

Removal:

a. Δ can remove to the district court in which the action is pending
b. Δ may remove regardless of diversity if there is a federal question; but not if the case is filed in the state in which they are domiciled
c. Dist court has discretion to hear or refuse to hear removal claims brought under supplemental jurisdiction

Front 13

§ 1447 :

Back 13

Removal:

a. motion to remand must be filed within 30 days except if its because of lack of SMJ which can be remanded any time
b. remand order is not reviewable by appellate court
c. if after removal π seek to join Δs that would destroy SMJ the ct can deny joinder or remand to state ct

Front 14

§ 1441(b)

Back 14

no removal if any Δ is a citizen of the forum (no local Δ rule)

Front 15

§ 1446(b)

Back 15

no removal more than one year after the case was filed in state court (stupid because encourages joining a local defendant and dismissing a year later)