• 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

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/22

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

22 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
FQJ (1331) analysis part I
1. Is there a federal issue at all?
FQJ analysis part 2
2. Does the claim arise under federal law? (in other words - is the claim dependent on an interpretation of federal law [well-pleaded complaint rule], or is the P attempting to vindicate some right given by federal law?)
2 potential ways this question can be answered
FQJ analysis part 3
3. Is the claim that arises under federal law state-created?
Grable test - A state-created claim can invoke FQJ only if
1. the case necessarily raises a federal issue
2. the federal issue is actually disputed and substantial
3. federal jurisdiction over this issue will not disturb "any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities"
3 part-test
Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction (1332) Requirement 1
Diversity of citizenship (complete diversity rule; people are citizens of the state in which they are domiciled [1.physical presence 2. intent to remain]; corporations are citizens where they are incorporated and where their POB is (nerve center test - Hertz); noninc. business - the citizenship of all the partners
Where are persons, corporations, and partnerships citizens for purposes of 1332?
1332 Requirement 2
Amount in controversy must exceed 75k exclusive of interest and costs
Aggregation rules for amount in controversy requirement
Single P-Single D - aggregate as many as she has; Multiple Ps cannot aggregate claims unless the claims are factually related (supplemental jurisdiction 1367) or if 2 or more Ps hold a joint and undivided interest in property that has a value in excess of 75k, the court will consider the amount in controversy to be the value of the property; Multiple Ds - A P may aggregate claims against multiple Ds only if the total injury suffered by P exceeds 75k and if under governing law, Ds can be held jointly liable for the entire injury
Single P-Single D, Multiple Ps (2 possibilities), Multiple Ds
Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367(a)
same case or controversy requirement - may use "common nucleus of operative fact" (Gibbs) or, are they so related that if we dismiss one claim, the other claims would have to be dismissed?
1367(b)
Applies only to 1332 - no supplemental jurisdiction over claims by Ps against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as Ps under Rule 19, or seeking to intervene as Ps under Rule 24
1367(c)
District court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if
1. it raises a novel or complex issue of state law (Szendrey-Ramos)
2. the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction (Szendrey-Ramos)
3. the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction or
4. in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction
4 c factors
Gibbs factors
judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants
Some courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, consider this factors in making a determination on whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(c).
Removal (1441) unavailable if
homestate defendant exception (1441(b)(2)), one year outward limit (or if the claim not removable when filed, 30 days from the time at which it becomes removable, but still within one year outward limit)
Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act
Upon a finding of bad-faith concealment of federal jurisdiction by the P, the one-year limitation for removal is relaxed.
Local actions (only in state court - in these cases venue will only lie where the property is)
1. in rem or QIR cases in which the land is used as a basis for jurisdiction
2. cases claiming a remedy in real property, such as a claim to foreclose on a mortgage or to quiet title or to eject a tenant
3. cases involving damage to realty, including damage caused by trespass
3 types
Venue Question 1
Is venue in the chosen forum proper?
Apply state venue statute in state court.
In federal court, see 1391(b): a judicial district in which any D resides, if all Ds are residents of the forum state; a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; if no appropriate district, any judicial district in which any D is subject to the court's PJ (generally applies when a substantial part of the events occurred outside the US and either multiple Ds reside in different states or an individual D resides outside the US)
1 avenue in state court, 3 possibilities in federal court
1391- Where does the D reside for purposes of venue?
People - where they're domiciled (1391(c)(1); Corporations - all districts in which it's subject to PJ when the case is commenced; Permanent Residents reside in the district where they're domiciled; Aliens not PR may be sued in any judicial district for venue purposes
Persons, corporations, Permanent Residents, Aliens
1391 - Is the challenged venue based on events?
Venue proper in any district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Uffner. Can be in multiple districts.
Forum Non Conveniens (Remember - only available to Ds and is often conditional)
1. D must prove that an alternative forum exists that is both available and adequate.
2. D must show that the balance between private and public interests weighs in favor of dismissal even after giving deference to P's forum choice (Gilbert) (most courts hold private factors higher than public)
2 steps
Private factors for FNC
relative ease of access to the sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for the attendance of the unwilling; the costs of obtaining attendance of unwilling witnesses; the possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; all other practical considerations that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive
Public factors for FNC
administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; local interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness or burdening on citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty
1404
transfer if venue is proper
Since venue is proper, the law of that state will follow when the case is transferred.
1406
transfer if venue is improper (remedy can be to transfer or to dismiss the case entirely)
transfer "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice" - what would warrant this?
convenience for the parties; physical strength of the parties (affluence may matter here); avoiding multiple lawsuits in different states for the same occurrence; transfer may enable P to get PJ over an additional D' inability to get a fair trial due to media attention; convenience for the witnesses
Remember - transfer is the exception, not the rule, because courts generally give great weight to the P's choice of forum.