Civil Procedure Outline
Prof. Brody
(D) = Defendant, (P) = Plaintiff
4 elements to Get into Federal Court (or any court)
Subject matter jurisdiction – power over the topic
Personal jurisdiction – authority over the persons involved
Proper notice – notifying parties of action
Venue – locale
Subject Matter Jurisdiction – which kind of cases belong in which courts.
Federal Question
Diversity of citizenship and greater than $75,000
Power of a court to decide certain kinds of cases. Full Faith and Credit, Due Process Clause. Subject Matter – the topic or issue that is being considered; the issue in dispute before a court, legislature or an administrative body.
Constitution: Article III, sec. 2
Section 2. Judicial power extended to:
§ Constitutional disputes
§ Law and Equity
§ U.S. law and treaties
§ Disputes in which the U.S. is a party
§ Disputes between two or more states
§ Diversity of citizenship
Trial of all crimes (except Impeachment) shall be by jury
Statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332
§1331. Federal Question The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Federal Question – cases arising under the laws of the U.S., treaties, or the Constitution; Not exclusive to the federal courts (concurrent jurisdiction), state courts may also hear cases.
§ U.S.C. Federal jurisdiction is exclusive in cases involving admiralty (§1333), bankruptcy (§1334), and antitrust (§1335)
§ “Arising under” = that which comes from the (P) theory of the case
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleyLIFETIME RAILROAD PASS U.S. Sup. Ct., 1908
Railroad (D) v. invalid lifetime pass holder (P)
Summary: (P) was given a lifetime pass for transportation on (D) railway as a settlement for an accident. Congress then outlawed lifetime passes. (D) railroad refused to accept the passes and (P) filed a suit for specific performance. (P) was awarded damages in federal trial court. (D) Appealed to the supreme court.
Ruling & Rationale: Court ruled the Trial court was without jurisdiction. Supreme Court has a duty to see that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is not exceeded ® court can make its own motion without a motion from either of the parties involved (sua sponte).
Well- Pleaded Complaint Rule:Suit arises under Federal Question only when the (P)’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. (there was no diversity of citizenship in this case)
§1332. Diversity of Citizenship
(a). The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between:
(1) Citizens of different states
(2) A citizen of a state and subjects of a foreign state
(3) Citizens of a different state and in which foreign states or citizens are additional parties.
(4) A foreign (P) and a citizen of a state
(c). Definition of a Corporation.
(1) where it is incorporated and where it has its primary place of business (except where an insured (P) sues his insurer; insurer will be determined to be a citizen of that state.)
(2) Legal representative of a decedent, or legal representative of an infant/incompetent, shall be a citizen only of that of the represented person.
*** *** *** *** ***
To be a citizen
1. First must be a citizen of U.S.
2. Must be a citizen at the time the complaint is filed
3. All (P)s must be diverse from all (D)s (Strawbridge v. Curtis)
Citizenship = domicile (Louisville Railroad)
1. Must have residence
2. Must have intent to stay
3. until you acquire a new place, you retain the last domicile
Mas v. Perry PEEPING-TOM LANDLORD 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1974
(P) couple tenants (husband foreigner, wife state) v. (D) peeping-tom (Louisiana)
Summary: (D) appealed from a judgment for (P) awarding damages incurred as a result of the discovery of “two-way” mirrors through which the appellant landlord watched them. Jury awarded $5,000 to Mr. Mas and $15,000 to Mrs. Mas. (D) Appealed claiming lack of jurisdiction (for diversity of citizenship).
Ruling & Rationale: Awards were affirmed. Two separate legs of jurisdiction stood ® claim of an alien v. state citizen, and an action between citizens of different states.
Partnerships – for diversity purposes not considered entities (as in property) but as collection of individuals; i.e. 1 (P) v. 2 (D)’s
Corporation citizenship § 1332 (c) (1) – dual citizenship; where it is incorporated an where it has its chief place of business
Often business incorporate under the law of a state deemed to have more permissive corporation laws (Delaware)
“Chief place of business” = question of fact.
Saadeh v. Farouki FOREIGNER LOAN DISPUTE D.C. Court of Appeals, 1997
(P) lender, Greek citizen v. (D) borrowing “permanent resident”
Summary: (D), a Jordanian citizen residing in Maryland (“permanent resident” immigration status in U.S.) defaulted on a loan from (P), a Greek citizen. While litigation was underway (D) became a citizen of the U.S.
Rule & Rationale: Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a): “an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.
A literal reading of the sta
her tucking contracts and mine leases allegedly because of the (D)’s “concentrated plan against him.” (secondary boycott – striking against 3rd party workers – illegal under federal law)
Procedural Context:
– federal claim of breaking federal law
– state claim of “unlawful conspiracy and an unlawful boycott”
Federal Circuit court ruled on both; union pressure didn’t fall under the federal law, but the employment relationship was under a state claim
Issue: Whether the Dis. Court properly entertained jurisdiction of the claim based on state law. Ruled it was with in same nucleus of operative fact
Pendent Jurisdiction exists whenever there is a claim arising under the Constitution or U.S. Law, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprised but “one” constitutional “case.”
The Federal Power to hear state actions need not be exercised in every case in which it is found to exist.
– If the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed
– If the state issues are substantially predominant (can be dismissed without prejudice.
– Reasons independent of jurisdiction, i.e. jury confusion.
– Issue of whether pendent jurisdiction has been properly assumed remains open throughout the litigation
Removal – (D)’s chance at federal jurisdiction; only applies when the (P) has brought the case in state court.
Removal § 1441
(a)
– civil action brought in state court
– over which the federal court has original jurisdiction
– (D)’s can remove the case to the federal district court embracing the place where the case is pending.
(b)
– if based on a federal question, may be removed regardless citizenship
– if not, must have diversity of citizenship.
§ 1446 (b) – notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of the service of process, or within 30 days of service of summons. (GENERAL RULE for TIMING) But if it not removable, notice of removal my be filed 30 days after the case becomes removable, except that a case may not be removed upon diversity after one year following the filing of the action
