Civil Procedure II Outline – Spring 2010
I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Can We Hear the Case?)
A. The Idea and Structure of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
4 Ways Federal District Court can hear a Case:
1.) Federal Question
2.) Diversity Jurisdiction
3.) Supplemental Jurisdiction
4.) Case is Removed to Federal Court
In order for a court to hear a case, the court must have both SMJ and PJ.
State courts have general jurisdiction which means they can hear any case that comes before them unless there is statute that removes that case to federal
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, which means they can only hear cases constitutionally allowed
B. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Mottley Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule- A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action in the complaint shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution; not when an anticipatory defense is invalidated by the Constitution
§ 1331- District Court’s power of subject matter jurisdiction (“arising under” is more narrow)
Article III- Supreme Court’s power of subject matter (“arising under” is broader)
A defendant may challenge Federal SMJ by raising 12(b)(1) or (6) motions to dismiss.
C. Diversity Jurisdiction
Title 28 §1332 Diversity of Citizenship
a.) District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, excluding interest and costs, 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 foreign states are additional parties
4.) A foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States
– An alien admitted to U.S. as a permanent resident shall be deemed a citizen of the state in which the alien is domiciled
“Between” in the Constitution requires “minimal diversity”; there is more room for federal jurisdiction that is not being used
“Between” in § 1332 requires “complete diversity”
Class actions under § 1332 (d) is an example of how Congress uses more of the Constitution’s allowed federal jurisdiction
Common Law:
“Complete Diversity”- no plaintiff and defendant can be a citizen of the same state.
Diversity Jurisdiction under §1332 requires the person to be:
1.) A Citizen and
2.) Domiciled within the state of question.
§ Physically present in the state by living there
§ Maintaining a residence
§ Having a family
§ Professional activities,
§ Intent to return and remain indefinitely
Diversity is determined at the time the complaint is filed
When a party will destroy jurisdiction, you can drop him if he is not essential to the case.
Rules for Diversity Jurisdiction:
1.) No jurisdiction for an alien to sue an alien; any time the jurisdiction is not granted by § 1332(a)(3), if there are aliens on different sides, it destroys complete diversity. Ex: AL and Japan v. Mexico- No Jurisdiction; If AL and Japan v. New York and Mexico- Jurisdiction
2.) Corporations have dual citizenship when the state in which it is incorporated is different from the state in which it maintains its chief place of business.
3.) Partners of a firm have individual citizenship
4.) The representative of a child, an incompetent, or a deceased person has the same citizenship as the individual represented
5.) Citizens of D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam are citizens for diversity
Exceptions to Federal Jurisdiction:
1.) Domestic Relations- no divorce
2.) Probate a Will
Amount in Controversy Rules:
1.) To dismiss the claim for lack of SMJ, the complaint on its face must show to a legal certainty that:
a.) P cannot recover the amount claimed or
b.) P was never entitled to that amount in order to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction
2.) A single plaintiff with two or more unrelated claims against a single defendant may aggregate claims to satisfy the statutory amount
3.) If two plaintiffs have claims against a single defendant, they may not aggregate if their claims are regarded as “separate and distinct”
4.) Plaintiff One- claims in excess of $75,000; P2- claim less than $75,000; both can sue
§ 1359- No jurisdiction in which a party has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court
D. Supplemental Jurisdiction
§ 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction
(a) In any civil action in which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction, the district court should also have supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that are “so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of Constitution
Original Jurisdiction in this subsection means that it can be federal question, diversity, supplemental, removal
Even when it involves joinder of additional parties
(b) Exceptions: District Court cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs joined by Rule 14, 19, 20, 24, 19 when exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirement of § 1332
These exceptions only apply to Diversity Jurisdiction because if you already had Diversity Jurisdiction, you wouldn’t need Supplemental Jurisdiction
(c) Exceptions: Court MAY decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when:
1.) The claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law
2.) The claim substantially predominates (exerts control) over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction
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
E. Removal
§ 1441 Actions Removable Generally
(a) Civil actions that are filed in state court but could have been filed in district court may be removed by defendant to the appropriate district court
(b) Claims arising out of Constitution, treaties, or laws (Federal Question) shall be removable without regard to citizenship. Any other actions not involving federal question can only be removable when there is diversity.
§ 1445 Nonremovable Actions
1.) Railroads
2.) Carriers, Receivers, or Trustees for delay in shipments
3.) Workmen’s Comp. Laws of that State
4.) Violence Against Women Act of 1994
§ 1446 Procedure for Removal
(a)Removal must be signed pursuant Rule 11; must contain short and plain statement of the grounds for removal; must contain a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon defendants
(b) Must be filed within 30 days after defendant is served with initial pleading or summons
§ 1447 Procedure After Removal
If joinder destroys diversity jurisdiction, court MAY deny joinder or permit it and remand to state
Common Law:
A district court’s failure to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not fatal to ensuing adjudication if the federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered
______________________________________________________________________________
II. Personal Jurisdiction (Can We Bring this Defendant?)
A. Origins
Article IV § 1: Full Faith and Credit
§ Requires other states to enforce the judgments of other states unless that state lacked jurisdiction
Fourteenth Amendment § 1: Due Process Clause
§ No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
Rule 4(k)(1): If state court can assert personal jurisdiction, then a federal court can assert personal jurisdiction
Pennoyer v. Neff: Power, Consent, and Notice
§ No personal jurisdiction (power) over defendant unless:
1.)
wo Tests:
1.) Minimum Contacts- “purposeful availment”
2.) Fair Play and Substantial Justice:
a.) Burden on Defendant
b.) Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
c.) Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
d.) Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution
e.) Shares interstate of several; states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
§ Even if M.C. are met, FP and SJ may not be; therefore, no jurisdiction
Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1985): takes place in a federal court; others took place in state court. Rule 4(k)(1)(A), Federal courts will have same personal jurisdiction as state courts
§ P must show that D had Minimum Contacts. D must show that MC violate Fair Play and Substantial Justice by showing that jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Unreasonable is determined by weighing the Volkswagen and Asahi factors against D’s contacts.
§ The court notes its concerns that allowing personal jurisdiction to out of state consumers could deprive consumers of their day in court. However, the court emphasized that jurisdiction may not be grounded on a contract whose terms have been obtained through fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power and whose application would render litigation so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.
Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002)
§ 3 part test for personal jurisdiction:
1.) Purposeful Availment
§ Mere knowledge of harm is not purposeful availment
2.) Controversy arises out of D’s contacts with the state
3.) Personal Jurisdiction must comply with fair play and substantial justice (Reasonable)
a.) Burden on Defendant
b.) Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
c.) Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
d.) Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution
e.) Shares interstate of several; states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
D. General Jurisdiction
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1952): jurisdiction by necessity case; if Ohio didn’t assert jurisdiction, no other state could
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1983): Mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions
Burnham v. Superior Court (1990): Not Law! Due Process Clause is not offended by submitting a nonresident who was present within the state at time of service to jurisdiction within that state. Physical presence meets requirement of FP and SJ.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991): (Contract as Consent)
§ Consent to jurisdiction if you do not raise 12b2 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
§ Majority: Forum Selection Clause is a valid way for D’s to consent to forum
§ Dissenting: courts disfavor FSC because unequal bargaining power
§ Types of Contract Provisions that Subject Ds to Jurisdiction:
