April 25, 2011
CIVIL PROCEDURE II: FINAL OUTLINE
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Diversity v. federal question: in the federal courts, there are two basic kinds of controversies over which the federal judiciary has SMJ:
1. Suits between citizens of different states (diversity jurisdiction); AND
2. Suits involving a “federal question”
B. Amount in controversy: in federal suits based upon diversity, an amount in excess of $75,000 must be in dispute. In federal questions, there is no amount in controversy requirement
C. Burden: the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction must make an affirmative showing that the case is within the court’s SMJ. (Example: If P wants to invoke diversity, in her pleading she must allege the relevant facts about the citizenship of the parties.)
D. Dismissal at any time: No matter when a deficiency in the SMJ of a federal court is noticed, the suit must be stopped and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
II: FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
A. Generally: The constitution gives the federal court authority to hear “federal question” cases. Under 28 USC 1331, the federal courts have jurisdiction over all “civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”
1. Federal Claim: the reason there is a federal question is that federal law is the source of the P’s claim. (Examples: copyright infringement raises a federal question b/c a federal copyright statute in the source of the right the P is asserting)
a. Interpretation of federal law: it is not enough that P is asserting a state-created claim which requires interpretation of federal law. The claim must arise under federal law
b. Claim based upon the merits: if P’s claim clearly “arises” under federal law, it qualifies for federal question jurisdiction even if the claim is invalid under the merits. (case may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 12(b)(6) but will still be in federal court
c. Anticipation of defense: the federal question must be integral to the P’s cause of action, as revealed by the P’s complaint. It does not suffice for federal question jurisdiction that P anticipates a defense based on federal question statute, or even that D’s answer does in fact raise a federal question. The federal question must be raised in the “well pleaded complaint”.
See Louisville v Motley
III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
A. Definition: The constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over “controversies between the citizens of different states”
1. Date for determining: the existence of diversity is determined as of the commencement of the action. If diversity existed between the parties on that date, it is not defeated b/c one of the parties later moved to a state that is the home state of the opponent
2. Domicile: what controls for citizenship is domicile, not residence. A person’s domicile is where she has her true, fixed and permanent home. Example: P has his main house in NY and a second, expensive house in FL. D has her only home in FL. P can bring a diversity suit against D b/c P is deemed a citizen only of NY, not FL even though P has a “residence” in FL.
a. Resident alien: A resident alien (an alien who lived in the US permanently) is deemed a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled
b. Presence of foreigner: in a suit between citizens of different stats, the fact that a foreign citizen (or foreign country) is a party does not destroy diversity. Example: P, a citizen of OH brings a suit against D1, a citizen of MI and D2, a citizen of Canada. Diversity jurisdiction exists
3. Complete diversity: the single most important principle to remember in connection with diversity jurisdiction if that “complete diversity” is required. It must be the case the no P is a citizen of the same state as any D. Example: P is a citizen of NY and sues D1, a citizen of FL and D2, a citizen of NY. There is no diversity
4. Pleading not dispositive: in order to determine whether diversity exists, the pleadings do not settle the question of who are adverse parties. Instead, the court looks beyond the pleadings, and arranges the parties according to their real interests in the litigation
a. Nominal parties ignored: in determining the existence of diversity, nominal or purely formal parties are ignored. Example: where the guardian of an infant sues, the guardian is deemed to be a citizen of the same state as the infant
B. Alienage jurisdiction: related to diversity jurisdiction, but analytically distinct. Exists where there is a suit between citizens of a state on one side, and foreign states or citizens thereof on the other. Example: P a citizen of Mexico sues D, a citizen of Illinois. Even if there is no federal question, there will be federal subject matter jurisdiction of the “alienage” variety, assuming the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied
1. Suit between two foreign citizens: a suit between citizens of the two foreign countries does not fall within the alienage jurisdiction
a. Resident alien: a foreigner living in the US—i.e., a resident alien—is deemed to be a citizen of the state where she permanently resides for diversity analysis. Example: P, a citizen of Illinois, sues D, a Canadian living permanently in Illinois. D will be deemed to be a citizen of Illinois. There is no diversity
b. Resident alien v. non-resident alien: one of the parties must be a citizen of the us
2. Aliens and US citizens on same side: jurisdiction is not destroyed by the fact that one or more non-resident foreigners and one or more US citizens are each present on each side of the litigation. Here the
al for lack of jurisdiction
a. Discretion to deny costs: the federal court has the discretion to deny costs to P, and even impose costs on him, if he recovers less than $75k. 28 USC 1332(b)
C. Whose point of view to follow: the courts are split as to which party’s point of view is to be considered in calculating the amount at stake. Most courts hold that the controversy must be worth $75k to the P in order to satisfy the threshold
D. Aggregation of claims: in multi-plaintiff or multi-claim litigation, there are distinct rules governing when aggregation of claims is permissible for meeting the jurisdictional amount
1. Aggregation by a single P: if a single P has a claim in excess of $75k he may add to it any other claim (related OR unrelated) against the same D, even though these other claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount.
a. No claim exceeds $75,000: even if a P does not have any single claim worth more than $75k, he may add together all of his claims against a single D, so long as these claims total more than $75k
b. Aggregation is allowed only when there is one P and one D
c. Additional defendants: A P, who has aggregated his claim against a particular D, usually may not join claims against other Ds for less than the jurisdictional amount required.
Example: P has two claims, each for $40k against D1. P will be deemed to meet the amount in controversy as to the claims b/c they exceed $75k. But if P tries to bring D2 into the suit and has a single claim against D2, the majority of courts will not allow this claim b/c it is lower than the amount required and supplemental jurisdiction does not apply
2. Aggregation by multiple Ps:
a. At least one P meets the amount: if one P meets the amount, it is not clear whether the other P’s may join their related claims against that same D. (REVIEW DOCTRINE OF SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION HERE)
b. No single claim meets the amount: if no single P has a claim or claims meeting the threshold, aggregation is NOT allowed. (Exception: where two or more Ps unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest, aggregation is allowed; DOCTRINE OF SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION). THE CLAIMS ARE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME CONTROVERSY—28 USC 1367
