Civ Pro II
Tues. Jan. 13
3 Questions for whether a court has power to declare law over a case
1. Do you have Personal Jurisdiction? 2. How about Subject Matter Jurisdiction? 3. Choice of Law? (Erie Doctrine)
Article III jurisdiction (j/d)
-authorizes the establishment of system of “inferior” District federal courts
-Section 2 sets the limits of federal authority
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
-power of this court over this kind of case
Exclusive ex: only Fed courts can hear patents, bankruptcy, admiralty, etc.
vs.
Concurrent : any other civil case (NOT criminal cases)
Key concepts: -need both Const. and Statutory power to have j/d over case
-Constitution just provides outer boundaries
-Tactical reasons for Federal vs. State court: jury pool selection, avoid getting home cooked by local state judges, more favorable rules/laws
Federal Question Jurisdiction / “Arising Under” (U.S.C. Section 1331)
* use theHolmes test: does the claim “arise under” a federal issue or rule
Mottley Rule : original cause of action must be a federal law claim that appears in the “well-pleaded complaint”
-advantage: saves courts time by deciding j/d upfront
-here, the railroad’s appeal failed Mottley test b/c the federal claim must arise under the P’s claim, but here it is merely in anticipation other party’s defense concerning federal issue
*the federal issue must be neccessary to prove P’s claim. It must be “central and neccessary” to the complaint. CANNOT be merely in anticipation of defense by party being sued
–generally courts must have Constitutional and Statutory authority to review a case
–ability of the Supreme Court to review every case is limited statutorily (U.S.C. Sect.1257)
– Mottley and Rule 12h3 tells us that Fed. Subj. Matter Jurisdiction is NOT waivable (unlike personal j/d).
– can it be challenged collaterally (by a third party)? Yes
By a party who defaults? Yes
By a party who litigates on the merits? Courts are split (issue of fairness to wait too long)
-Fed Court power is limited by both the Constitution and Congress
Vs. State Court power is general (assumed to have j/d over the case)
Note: Challenging Fed.Subj.Matter j/d (p.186)
-can dismiss under 12b1(wrong j/d but can still refile in state court) or 12b6(failure to state a legally cognizable claim)
**but, the 12b6 dismissal precludes re-filing in state court**(kills the claim forever)
Thurs. Jan. 15
1. diversity j/d
2. diverse citizenship of opposing parties
3. amount in controversy exceeds $75k
4. aliens
1.-Why Diversity j/d at all? àsupposedly to prevent unfair treatment of out of staters in state court (Vega challenges validity of this in modern courts
2.- Analysis to determine a Corporation’s dual citizenship
-can be citizens of either or both
1a) the state incorporated in (guranteed to be one of them) AND
2a.) principal place of business test (state where most business occurs, quantity analysis)
2b.) BUT if still indeterminate then courts look to the nerve center test (where headquarters at)
*Amount in Controversy- minimum $75,000 required for Fed. Court
-is generally not challenged by court but if it seems excessive than validity of amount is based on what a “reasonable jury might award”
**State citizenship depends on present domicile AND intent to remain indefinitely
4. Aliens (foreign citizens)
Redner: for diversity j/d courts care about citizenship, not residenceà Denied a U.S. citizen who resides in France to claim diversity j/d under USC 1332a2.(State citizen vs. Foreign state citizen)
Then, court denied claim for California domicile b/c he admitted to being resident of France, not Cali.
Saadeh: Def. is foreign citizen with “permanent resident” status in Marylandàunder USC 1332(a) “an alien admitted to U.S. with permanent residence be deemed a citizen of the state the alien is domiciled”
-ex: “Elizabeth Taylor” case: U.S. citizen is permanently residing and domiciled in England is NOT considered a resident of any US state for purposes of diversity j/d
Strawb
If plaintiff sues one defendant for $50,000 and a second defendant for $60,000 she satisfies the amount in controversy requirement for each defendant. False (cannot aggregate on multiple Def., 1367, Supp. Jurisdiction, does not allow b/c claims not arising from same claim)
10) If plaintiff sue one defendant on claim for $110,000 and second defendant for $30,000 she can satisfy the amount in controversy requirement by aggregating the claim. False
11) Two plaintiffs bring a suit against the same defendant, if the first plaintiff seeks $80,000 and the second $30,000, under 28 USC 1667 the second plaintiff is allowed to tag along as long as they are suing only the one defendant. True
12) A citizen of France remains a citizen of that country for diversity purposes even if domiciled in U.S. unless he or she has permanent resident status. True ?? later Vega said False
Supplemental Jurisdiction (U.S.C. 1367)
-allows for Fed. Court to review a state law claim that is sufficiently related to Pl.’s federal issue claim (i.e. state law claim is hooked into federal court)
Certain questions have to be asked and answered for this to happen:
a. Constitutional: part of same “Constitutional issue or controversy” (1367a)
b. Statutory: if it’s a diversity only case does supp. j/d claim fall within 1367b’s forbidden categories? (not an issue in Ameriquest or Szendry b/c they are both federal question, not diversity cases)
-1367b bars supp. j/d from 3 categories of joinder: 1. joined parties under R14, 19, 20, or 24. 2.) joined Ps under R19 3.) intervening Ps (basically only allows supp.j/d to be claimed by the first P under his original claim)
