Civil Procedure II Outline

CIVIL PROCEDURE II
Matt Vega, Civil Procedure by Yeazell, 7th Edition

Week 11, Lecture 19, 3/23/2009, Week 13, Lecture 24, 4/9/2009, Week 14, Lecture 25, 4/14/2009

FIRST SEMESTER REVIEW
1. The Life Cycle of a Lawsuit
a. Overview of Civil Procedure
b. Pleading: Initiating the Suit
c. Discovery: Developing Facts, Defining Contentions
d. Ending Lawsuits without Trial: Default Judgment, Dismissal & Summary Judgment
e. The Trier & the Trial: JMOL, JNOV
f. Respect for Judgment: Claim & Issue Preclusion

SECOND SEMESTER OUTLINE
1. Brief Outline
a. Subject Matter
b. Personal Jurisdiction
c. Venue
d. Erie
e. Joinder
f. Class Actions
2. 3 Issues to Address for Any Case
a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
b. Personal Jurisdiction
c. Veune
3. Quick Notes/Reminders of Jurisdiction
a. Constitutional Authority defines the outer limits of Jurisdiction
b. Statutes define the inner limits of jurisdiction
c. Both combine to produce jurisdiction
d. Types of Jurisdiction
i. Limited Jurisdiction – Federal Courts
ii. General Jurisdiction – State Courts
iii. Concurrent Jurisdiction – Congressional Exception
1. If Congress in the statute expressly says that a certain issue is a federal issue

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
1. Article 3
a. Section 1 – Creates the Supreme Court
b. Section 2 – defines the scope/outer limits of the lower federal courts
i. Limits what issues the court will or will not be allowed to hear (Limited Jurisdiction)
1. Unlike state courts which can hear more issues (General Jurisdiction)
2. Fed.R.Civ.P 12(h)(3) – “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
3. 3 Forms
a. Federal Question
i. Constitutional Authority – Article III, Section 2
1. Article III doesn’t directly confer diversity jurisdiction on the lower federal courts. It authorizes Congress to create lower federal courts and to confer jurisdiction upon them to hear the types of cases enumerated in Article III § 2
ii. Statutory Authority – 28 USC 1331 – “Arising under”
1. More narrow than article 3
iii. Case: Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley – well pleaded complaint rule
1. Ps were given lifetime passes for free travel on the railroad as a settlement for a previous accident. After 30 years, the railroad refused to renew the pass because Congress passes a statue barring these passes. P sued for breach of contract and the statute arose as a defense to their argument, not as an element of the complaint
2. For a plaintiff to sue in federal court, he must assert a claim that arises under federal law – The federal question must arise out of the claim itself.
a. The claim in this case was dismissed because the federal legal issue arose out of the Plaintiff’s anticipation of the Defendant’s affirmative defense
3. The Holmes Test finds jurisdiction under 1331 if the source of P’s enforceable legal right against D is a federal law/statute, or if the claim is the cause of action
4. The Smith Exception – you don’t just look at the face of the complaint. The federal issue must emanate from the Plaintiff’s claims
i. Mottley + Fed.R.Civ.P 12(h)(3) = subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. It can be challenged by the court even if both parties are ready to argue in federal court
1. the court can dismiss for lack of jurisdiction according to Rule 12(h)(3) since it is an unwave-able defense
g. Diversity Jurisdiction
i. Authority
1. Constitutional Authority – Article III, Section 2
2. Statutory Authority – 28 USC § 1332
a. $75,000.01+
b. Suits between: citizens of different states; state citizen v. foreign citizen; citizens of different states where additional parties are foreing
ii. Basic purpose – to provide neutral forum for out of state defendants to avoid “home cooking”
iii. Elements
1. Amount in Controversy Must Exceed $75,000 à $75,000.01
2. Parties Must be Diverse
iv. Case: Redner v. Sander – residence and citizenship aren’t the same thing
1. US citizen working in France sues 3 Defendants (2 NYC citizens and NYC company). Plaintiff sued under 1332(a)(2) claiming he was a citizen of a foreign state, yet argues from the diversity of state standpoint under 1332(a)(1)
2. P wasn’t a foreign citizen and failed to show diversity from Defendants under 1332
v. Case: Strawbridge v. Farouki
1. Stands for complete diversity between opposing parties
a. each from each side
vi. Case: Saadeh v. Farouki – citizenship requires domicile
1. Alienage jurisdiction – suits between 2 foreign nationals go to state courts – federal courts have no jurisdiction
a. But if 1 party reaches permanent resident status, then 1332 makes them the citizen of the state in which they reside for diversity purposes
2. The Rule – permanent resident are considered to be residents of state if it defeats diversity, not if it confers diversity
a. can only be used to defeat diversity
vii. 2 aliens cannot sue each other in federal court, but a US citizen can sue an alien
viii. Diversity gives out-of-state litigant the opportunity to go to federal court, instead of going to state court and getting “home-cooked”
h. Supplemental Jurisdiction
i. Authority
1. Constitutional Authority – Article III, Section 2
2. Statutory Authority – 28 USC 1367
a. (a) – is it part of the same “case or controversy” under Article III
b. (b) – No Supplemental Jurisdiction for:
i. claims under Fed.R.Civ.P 14, 19, 20, 24, or
ii. claims by persons proposed to be joined under Rule 19 or seeking to intervene under Rule 24, or
iii. when it would be inconsistent with §1332
c. (c) – 4 Discretionary Factors for No Supplemental Jurisdiction if:
i. the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, or
ii. the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, or
iii. the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
iv. in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
d. ***Know the difference in (a) and (b) – Broader for federal question than diversity***
ii. Federal court must have original jurisdiction over a claim before it can be exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an additional state law claim
1. Either diversity or federal question
iii. Discretion – the court has “discretion” in whether to allow supplemental jurisdiction
iv. Case: In Re Ameriquest
1. Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of supplemental jurisdiction because it couldn’t grant relief if it dismissed the state law claims
2. The nondisclosure was the violation of her federal rights – federal hook
3. The fraud was the violation of the Illinois state law – state claim related to hook
v. Case: Szendrey-Ramos
1. Bank challenged jurisdiction over Puerto rico claims
2. Court agreed that as a matter of discretion it wasn’t going to listen to purtero claims – because it would be forced to decide novel questions of puerorician law
3. A court at the end of the day can do what it wants
4. The state law claim substantially dominated over the federal claim – satisfying one of the 4 discretionary factors
vi. The Key – Find a Federal Hook that is founded in diversity of federal question jurisdiction
1. ensure that the state claims
a. are so related that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III
b. arise out of the same nucleus of the same operative and common facts

DIFFERENCES IN PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
1. Personal jurisdiction is a geographical limitation on the places where a plaintiff may choose to sue a defendant for a particular claim
a. It is intended, as a matter of basic fairness, to prevent a plaintiff from suing a non-resident defendant in a state unless that defendant has established a relationship to that state that would reasonably lead her to anticipate being sued there
2. Personal jurisdiction turns in each case on the relationship between the