Civil Procedure I Outline

 
Civil Procedure I
Jud Mathews
Fall 2014
 
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
 
Federal Question Jurisdiction
1.      Elements:
a.       Well pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint
b.      Suit arises under law that created COA (Holmes Test)
2.      Bases
a.       Constitutional:                        Article III Section II: arising under the laws of the US
b.      Statutory:                    28 USC §1331
3.      Remember:
a.       D’s answer or P’s counterclaim is irrelevant.
4.      Exceptions
a.       Smith Exception: (Substantial Question Exception) Embedded
                                                              i.      No change Mottley: court still look claim without regard to defenses D may assert.
                                                            ii.      Embedded means that it does not have to be brought up explicitly in complaint
                                                          iii.      Elements:
1.      Necessary
2.      Actually Disputed
3.      Substantial: looks to importance of issue to Fed system as whole
4.      Even balance between fed & state
                                                          iv.      Mere presence of fed issue generally not sufficient to impose federal jurisdiction.
                                                            v.      Violation of fed statute, but no fed remedy exists for that violation, not sufficient
5.      Declaratory Judgment: must be viewed as from who would have filed the complaint
 
Diversity Jurisdiction
1.      Elements
a.       Complete:
                                                              i.      Domicile Test: residence + plan stay indefinitely
                                                            ii.      Must be met at the time the suit is filed
b.      AIC over $75K.
                                                              i.      Good faith allegation
2.      Bases
a.       Constitutional:                        Article III Section II: between citizens of dif. states.
b.      Statutory:                    28 USC §1332
3.      Complete
a.       Every plaintiff diverse from every defendant: Domicile Test
b.      Individuals: citizen of state of domicile
                                                              i.      The citizenship of a child is that of her parents.
c.       Corporations à 1332
                                                              i.      PPB – “nerve center” (only one)
1.      Where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate activities
                                                            ii.      Incorporated (can be multiple)
                                                          iii.      Insurer: Incorporation, PPB, state in which the insured is a citizen.
d.      Unincorporated Associations: Citizenship of all of its members
e.       Class actions: if a class action is brought, the relevant citizenship is that of the named members who sue or are sued on behalf of the members of the association.
                                                              i.      Considerable room for maneuvering to create diversity
f.       Nonresident US Citizen: a US citizen domiciled abroad: not a citizen of any state and not an alien.
g.      Alienage Jurisdiction: §1332 (a)(2) grants SMJ over alien cases
                                                              i.      J denied if between a citizen of state and a permanent lawful resident living same state.
                                                            ii.      No: cases by and alien against an alien; must be citizen of state on one (actually both) side
h.      Examples:
                                                              i.      P (Venezuela) sues B (Fr).                              è No!             Not citizen of state.
                                                            ii.      P (Fr) sues D1 (LA) in LA.                             è Yes!           §1332(a)(2)
                                                          iii.      P (Fr) sues D1 (LA) and D2 (Fr) in LA.         è No!             §1332(a)(3)
                                                          iv.      P1 (Fr) & P2 (PA) sues D1 (LA) & D2 (Fr)   è Yes!           §1332(a)(3)
4.      Amount in Controversy
a.       Alternative liability theory => if under AIC, then not sufficient.  Can’t recover twice.
b.      Exclusive of the costs and expenses associated with trial
c.       Can be aggregated
                                                              i.      Counterclaims cannot be aggregated.
                                                            ii.      Single P may combine claims against single D even if unrelated or irrelevant.
                                                          iii.      Multi-party claims may not be aggregated
                                                          iv.      Unless the claims would by substantive law appear to be common and undivided
d.      Examples:
                                                              i.      P sues D1 (40K) and D2 (50K).         No!
                                                            ii.      P sues D1 (120K) and D2 (50K).       D1 ok, D2 no.
                                                          iii.      E sues L & P, whose fault? 100K.      OK. Either L or P maybe liable for over 75K.
                                                          iv.      Exceptions
1.      P1 sues D (150K).  P2 joins as co-plaintiff and sues D (60K).  OK!  28 USC §1367 – supplemental juris statute.  Here, the 2nd P may “tag along” since the 1st P’s claim meets AIC
e.       St. Paul Mercury Test:
                                                              i.      “To a legal certainty” claim is less than $75K.
                                                            ii.      Burden falls on D to prove AIC does not meet $75K.
                                                          iii.      Gives P benefit of the doubt.  If probably, but might not, AIC is met
                                                          iv.      If probably will not recover, but conceivably could, AIC is met
5.      Exceptions
a.       Domestic Relations:  refuses to hear cases only involving issuance of decrees of divorce, alimony, or child custody
 
Erie Doctrine
1.      RDA: Rule of Decision Act (28 USC §1652).  Federal courts should apply state law
2.      Initially, the RDA applied only to state statutes (Swift v. Tyson), not the case anymore.
3.      Erie requires the federal court to predict what the State’s Supreme Court would do…
a.       If the state courts have not decided the issue that is before the federal court, or if the decisions on point are old and no longer current with the decisions of other jurisdictions, the federal court may consider the law of other jurisdictions in reaching its decisions
b.      Focus of federal court is to determine what decision the highest court of the state would reach if confronted with the issue.
c.       Subsequent State Court Decisions
                                                              i.      If the highest state court renders a decision on an issue after the federal court has made its determination, the decision of the district court may be changed to conform to the new decision of the highest state court until the disposition of the final federal appeal.
4.      A federal court, in the exercise of its diversity jurisdiction, is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting, including the state’s conflict of law rules.
a.       However, the courts apply federal procedural law
5.      Substantive Law Examples
a.       Statutes of limitations and rules for tolling statutes of limitations
b.      Choice of law rules
c.       Elements of a claim or defense
6.      Should follow intermediate state ct precedents, unless convinced state’s highest court would rule otherwise.
7.      Under certain conditions, may certify a question to the state’s highest court.
8.      All states have developed “choice of law” rules to determine which body of substantive law to apply in cases with connections to more than one state.
a.       These choice of law rules have developed primarily through judicial decisions
 
Removal
1.      Not considered a pre-answer motion, will not preclude raising 12(b) defenses in a pre-answer motion
2.