CIVIL PROCEDURE II OUTLINE CHRISTENSEN SPRING 2013
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: suits involving diversity of citizenship and federal questions. In limited amount of cases may fall under federal judiciary power—ambassadors, admiralty, and cases involving the U.S.
· Amount in controversy must be over $75,000
· The party seeking to invoke SMJ must make an affirmative showing
· If SMJ is found not to exist at any time during the case, it is dismissed
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
Article III permits federal courts to assert jurisdiction in nine instances
· all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their authority”
· Controversies… between Citizens of different States;” and
· Controversies… between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects”
In order to have SMJ, u need power of congress and article III. The constitutions powers are very broad, u also need the permission of Congress to hear the case. Congress has plenary power
Two things for SMJ: 1) must be a statute giving the court authority to hear the dispute in question (permission from Congress) 2) case must fall within one of the nine categories of Article III (power from Constitution)
What if fail requirements? Try to take it to state court.
Generally, a fed court has concurrent jurisdiction with state courts. There are a number of exceptions where fed courts have exclusive jurisdictions.
· Original jurisdiction of SCOTUS;
· 28 USC 1334 bankruptcy;
· 28 USC 1338 patent and copyright; 2
· 8 USC 1351 foreign diplomats.
· itle 18 fed criminal;
· title 28 civil fed
Can state courts hear questions of federal law? Yes. Because there is concurrent jurisdiction with fed courts
Original Jurisdiction: SCOTUS ordinarily court of appellate jurisdiction; for small number of cases it will exercise “Original Jurisdiction over subject matter of case, Congress can also modify SCOTUS jurisdiction through Article III.
Rule from Louisville: a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws of that Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.
28 USC 1331: to determine whether a case qualifies for federal question jurisdiction under 1331
The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule:
· First – Plaintiff’s right to recover must come from federal law, the United States Constitution, or a treaty
· Second – that issue of federal law must appear in plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint
· Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, any material that is superfluous or irrelevant to the plaintiff’s claim(s) will not be considered when determining whether the court has federal question jurisdiction.
· It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.
Declaratory Judgment: How do we get around fed question jurisdiction? The D asks the court about the rights of the P’s rights. You flip the parties. Allows the fed court to issue a declaration of “rights and other legal relations” to an “interested party” in “a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction.” It is the character of the impending action, not the P’s defense. (Get Help!!!)
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Two part test: (1) Arise under federal law, (2) and must be plead in the complaint.
Generally: The constitution gives the federal courts authority to hear “federal question” cases. More precisely, the federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the U.S.
· federal question jurisdiction doesn’t require an amount in controversy
· Vast majority of cases say that the reason there is a federal question is because federal law is the source of P’s claim
· State claim that requires interpretation of federal law is normally not sufficient
· Federal question must be part of well-pleaded complaint; anticipation of defense based on federal law is not sufficient
· If a claim arises under federal law but is invalid on the merits, it still qualifies for FQJ—may dismiss by 12 (b) 6
· If constitutional rights are being infringed, that is a federal question
· Can an individual bring suit to prevent (preemptively) a gov’t official from violating th
main there—residence and intent must coincide. First have intention of being domiciled. Second, must be physically present. The court looks to subjective intent.
· A resident alien (an alien who lives in the U.S. permanently) is deemed a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled
· A foreign country or party does not destroy DJ
Complete diversity: the single most important thing to remember is that complete diversity is required—no P can be from the same state as any D.
What does 28 USC 1332 (Diversity Jurisdiction) require?
· First “you must ensure the litigants are of ‘diverse citizenship’
· Second “you must determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000”
Why do we have Diversity Jurisdiction?
· Fear of State Court Bias
· Impartiality as a result of lifetime tenure
1332 (a): The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
· (1)citizens of different States; (S) v. (S)
· (2)citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; A foreign national against either a MN or WI resident is diverse under 1332(a)(2) (S) v. (FC)( If a FC/S v. S) 1332(a)(2) would extend diversity to Minnesota v. Canada it denies diversity to Canada v. Canada.
· (3)citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties ; and (Citizens of foreign states/S) v. (citizens of foreign states/S), if countries are same but states are different, it is valid. (can/ca v. france/nev)