Civil Procedure–McKenna
Fall 2017
U.S. Courts and Sources of Law
The Constitution and Jurisdiction––Article III
§1 Est. Supreme Court and other fed. Courts
§2 SMJ of fed. Courts
Jurisdiction & court selection: The Big 3
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Fed. Or state court?
Is SMJ based on:
Federal question 28 U.S.C. 1331; or
Diversity jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1332
Personal Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the defendant?
Specific or general?
Venue
Appropriate Court
Venue Statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1404, 1406
Federal Court System
Deal with the constitutionality of the law, the laws and treaties of the U.S., cases involving ambassadors & public ministers, disputes b/w 2 or more states, admiralty law, bankruptcy, and habeas corpus issues
Fed judges nominated by president
State Court System
Most criminal cases, probate (wills & estates), most contract cases, torts cases, family law, final arbiters of state law and their constitutions
Their interpretation of Fed law may be appealed to SCOTUS
State judges can be elected, appointed
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
U.S. Constitution Art. III, Sec. 2 AND Federal Question, 28 U.S.C. 1331 OR Diversity of Citizenship, 28 U.S.C. 1332
SMJ based on Federal Question Jurisdiction––28 U.S.C. § 1331
Art. III of the Constitution: “arising under the Constitution, the law of the U.S.
Application: a federal ingredient in the case is enough; AND
28 U.S.C. §1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S.
Interpretation/App: Mottley – 1908 (confirms that jurisdiction under § 1331 is narrower than what is permissible under Article III).
Mottley: Establishes one basic guideline for determining whether a case arises under federal law, giving us the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule – i.e., Jurisdiction is based on what is pleaded in the Complaint
Arising Under: Determining when a case “arises under” federal law
1911, Justice Holmes: The Creation Test––a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action
if a P seeks relief under fed. Statute or regulation, this est. SMJ under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question)
Federal Question Jurisdiction––Other “arising under” considerations
Defenses cannot create a basis for fed. Jurisdiction: Mottley: It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States
Counterclaims cannot create a basis for fed. Jurisdiction
Is there a substantial federal question that is a necessary and disputed part of the state law claim, and would letting a fed. ct. hear the claim not upset the federal/state balance intended by Congress?
Concurrent Jurisdiction: most of the time a P can bring a fed. Claim in a state court, it is their choice
SMJ based on Diversity Jurisdiction––28 U.S.C. § 1332
Art. III, Sec. 2 of Constitution: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity…b/w citizens of different states
App: complete diversity required between plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) – remember the versus line; AND
28 USC 1332
The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 AND
Is b/w citizens of different states
Diversity Jurisdiction Questions
What does it mean to be citizen of a state?
How do you determine state citizen for corporations and non-corporate entities?
How do we assess the amount in controversy of a given suit?
Meaning of citizens of diff. states under 28 USC 1332
When is a suit b/w citizens of different states?
Only when there is complete diversity: Strawbridge––holds that no D can be a citizen of the same state as any P
Narrower than the same phrase in Constitution, which does not require complete diversity
Determining an individual’s citizenship: the Gordon and Mas tests
A person remains a citizen (domiciliary) of a state until he/she: (1) takes up residence in a different state (domicile), and (2) intends to remain there indefinitely. Gordon. This is the most common formulation of the test.
Another common test: domicile is the place of a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment and to which the person has the intention of returning whenever absent therefrom. Mas.
Under either test, citizenship is determined when the complaint is filed
Individual Citizenship and the Domicile Test
For 28 USC 1332 diversity jurisdiction purposes, a person is a citizen of the state where she has her domicile
Domicile: the place you reside with the intent to remain indefinitely (no plans to leave)
You don’t lose your domicile until you acquire a new one
Corporate Citizenship for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes
A corporation is a citizen of:
Its place of incorporation; AND
Its principal place of business 1332(c)(1)
Where is a corporation’s principal place of business?
Before Hertz: 3 tests/approaches:
Nerve Center Test: location from which the business “radiates out to its constituent parts and from which the business’s officers direct, control, and coordinate all activities without regard to locale in furtherance of the corporate objective”
Place of Activity test (corp. muscle test): where the business conducts the bulk of its activities
Total activity test: synthesis of the two previous tests (depended on the circumstances which test was used)
In Hertz, Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits and went with the Nerve Center Test
Non-Corporate Entity Citizenship
Considered citizens of every state in which their members (partners) are domiciled
28 USC 1332’s Amount in Controversy Requirement
Determined at the time the complaint is filed, not how much is recovered. Mas
Measuring the amount:
t within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
GJ: while it has been held, in cases on which appellant relies, that continuous activity of some sorts within a state is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity, there have been instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state were thought so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities
The commissioner responsible for the assessment of and collection of contributions to the Washington state (plaintiff) unemployment fund served a notice of assessment on International Shoe (defendant), a manufacturer and seller of shoes and footwear, for failure to pay into the fund during the years 1937 to 1940. International Shoe was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. The Commissioner served the notice of assessment upon a salesman employed by International Shoe in Washington State. International Shoe sought to set aside the notice on the grounds that it was not a corporation doing business in Washington, had no registered agent within the state, and was not an employer and did not furnish employment within the state as defined under state law.
Rule of law: For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a judgment in personam, due process requires that he have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Specific jurisdiction: satisfied through minimum contacts w/ the forum state (so that bringing the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”)
Permits courts to hear claims arising only out of these contacts
General Jurisdiction: jurisdiction over an entity that is continuously operating in the state
Permits all claims, of whatever origin, to be asserted against the defendant
Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction that flows from International Shoe
What minimum contacts are sufficient to establish specific PJ? McGee, Worldwide VW, Burger King
What does it mean for a cause of action to arise out of those contacts?
What activities in a state are “systematic and continuous” enough to give rise to general PJ? International Shoe, Daimler
