CIVIL PROCEDURE I (Fall 2011)
I. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 Introduction to American Courts (Readings: CB ix–xxv (skim), xxvii–xxxi, 3–18)
Chapter 2 Introduction to Litigation Process & Sources of Procedural Law (Readings: CB 19-35)
1. State court structure
a. Generally established by statutes enacted by the state legislature
b. Majority of disputes are litigated in state courts
c. All states have a trial court with broad subject matter j/d (in MA, general: Superior Courts; specialized: land, family/probate, housing)
d. 10th Amendment: powers not Constitutionally delegated to the US are reserved for the states
e. Generally, state courts can hear cases that could be brought in federal court
f. Specialized trial courts can have exclusive j/d, but don’t always
g. Most states have an intermediate appellate court (MA Appeals Court) and a court of final review (MA Supreme Judicial Court)
i. Those w/intermediate courts reserve final court for important cases/novel issues
ii. Some have no intermediate court
2. Federal court structure
a. Creation
i. US Supreme Court serves as the final interpretation of federal law (e.g., Constitution)
ii. Article III, s. 1 creates the Supreme Ct. and provides for the creation of inferior courts “as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” They can be added to/changed b/c of the “time to time” clause.
iii. 94 District Courts (trial-level); ea. State has at least one
iv. Appellate Courts are called Circuit Courts of Appeal – three justices hear your case
v. Supreme Court – apply for appeal through a certiorari
b. Constitutional jurisdiction, provided in Article III, s. 2; “The judicial power shall extend to:”
i. Constitutional/federal laws
ii. Ambassadors, ministers, consols
iii. Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
iv. US is a party (must be sovereign by having its own court system)
v. Between states
vi. Between a state and citizens of another state
vii. Between citizens of different states
viii. Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states
ix. Between a state/citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects
c. Statutory jurisdiction
i. 28 U.S.C. § 1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US
ii. 28 U.S.C. § 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 . . . and is between:
1. Citizens of different states
2. Citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
3. Citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
4. A foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a state or of different states
iii. For the purpose of this section, an alien admitted for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled
d. Generally, state courts can hear cases that could be brought in federal court (unless congressional statute provides it must be brought in federal, i.e., exclusive federal jurisdiction, e.g., patent (s. 1338) & copyright cases)
Subject matter jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things.
A person can't sue for the same events a second time (res judicata in civil matters)
II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A. Diversity Jurisdiction- Chapter 3 Complete diversity and citizenship determinations (Readings: CB 39-57; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); U.S. Const. art. III, §2, cl. 1)
1. Chapter 3 Corporate citizenship and non-incorporated businesses(Readings: CB 57-72; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)
2. Chapter 3 Amount in controversy requirement, aggregation & constitutional scope of diversity (Readings: CB 72-88; U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1332)
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
1. Constitutional scope
a. Art. III, s. 2 authorizes federal courts to hear cases “between citizens of different states”
b. Satisfied as long as there is “minimal diversity” – at least one plaintiff is from a different state than one /d
c. Legislature is free to narrow the cases as it wishes
2. Statutory scope
a. 28 U.S.C. s. 1332 doesn’t convey all diversity j/d to the federal cts; it imposes other requirements:
i. Complete diversity (Strawbridge rule)
ii. Amount in controversy
b. In analyzing diversity cases, make sure the case is w/in constitutional limits as well as statutory limits
3. Domicile test
a. Simultaneous requirements
i. Must be a US citizen, (or alien admitted for permanent residence)
ii. Must reside in the state, and
iii. Intend to remain indefinitely (versus remaining permanently)
b. Parties must be diverse on the day the complaint is filed — Gordon, where college student obtained a new domicile because she had indefinite plans to stay
c. Living in a state temporarily, or with a definite timeframe, does not constitute a new domicile
d. A person doesn’t lose his domicile until acquiring a new one (Move from WY to MA for law school to practice in CO after graduating. Still domiciled in WY until grad, then CO upon moving there b/c there was a definite time planned to stay in MA)
e. Evidence can support the test of whether one’s intent is to stay indefinitely, but the evidence itself is not the test
f. Any federal ct, regardless of location, will have subject matter j/d if the diversity claim is satisfied
g. Motion to dismiss due to lack of diversity may be filed at any time
h. An executor is treated as a citizen of the state in which the representee is domiciled
4. “Complete Diversity” rule (Strawbridge rule) — Mas, where graduate assistants didn’t obtain a new domicile in school
a. No party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side (class action suits look at representatives’ domiciles)
b. Constitutional scope (Art. III s. 2) is much larger – just requires minimal diversity (one citizen is from a diff. state)
c. Congress must convey j/d to the District Courts by statute (some, all, or none of diversity cases)
5. Corporate citizenship
all have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the US — NO AIC REQUIREMENT
vii. SC has held that a case only arises under federal law in two situations:
1. Where the plaintiff seeks relief created by federal law, or
2. In some cases, where he seeks to recover on a state law cause of action, but must prove a proposition of federal law in order to recover on her state law cause of action
viii. “Well-pleaded complaint” or Mottley rule: cases arise under federal law if the federal issue appears on the face of the “well pleaded” complaint, i.e., a proper complaint limited to allegations necessary to state a proper claim for relief relies on federal law
ix. Mottley – alleging an anticipated defense to a complaint isn’t enough
c. A court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject matter j/d — 12(h)(3)
d. Justice Holmes’s “Creation test:” a suit arises under “the law that creates the cause of action.”
x. If it satisfies the Holmes test, you’re good
xi. If not, look to Smith & Grable
1. Smith: where an important federal issue must be resolved to prove the complaint
2. Grable factors
a. The importance of the federal issue
b. Potential for disrupting the balance between state & federal courts
c. Impact on the federal courts’ docket
e. A counterclaim is typically not allowed to show arising-under j/d
f. Smith (1921): arose under a state corporation law; SC ruled that a case based on a state law claim could arise under federal law if it turned on an important federal issue (i.e., if an important federal issue must be resolved to prove the complaint)
g. Grable: federal j/d where tax code had to be interpreted to determine a quiet title action; federal j/d can be granted in cases arising under state law if they involve an essential element of federal statute, unless that grant would induce many state cases to end up in federal court — WHERE YOU HAVE TO SHOW SOMETHING THAT IS UNDER FEDERAL LAW
h. Merrel Dow (1986): situation similar to Smith (/p sued under state law, but proposed to prove the state claim by showing that the /d had violated a federal law); however, SC held that it did not arise under federal law. Congress didn’t provide means of recovery in the FDCA; granting j/d would provide a court remedy where Congress chose not to do so.
i. Claims arising under both a federal and state law: generally, if a plaintiff asserts a substantial claim within the federal court’s j/d, the federal court will have supplemental j/d over the entire dispute
j. Declaratory judgments: the threatened action, not the declaratory judgment, determines whether there is federal question j/d.
k. Federal j/d generally turns on the claims the plaintiff actually makes, not on those he could have but didn’t
