CIVIL PROCEDURE YELNOSKY FALL 2010
40% of the exam is T/F or MC (20 questions total)
At least 2 Essays
Open Book, make sure to bring the case book (may be directed towards the casebook during the exam)
I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A. Introduction
i. Courts must have BOTH Subject-Matter Jurisdiction & Personal Jurisdiction to render a judgment
ii. Rule 12 (h)(3): If a court determines at any time that it lacks Subject-Matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the case.
1. If the issue is not raised by either party, the court must raise the issue sua sponte (on the court’s own motion)
iii. Article III
1. Authorizes the establishment of the system of federal courts
2. § 2
a. Sets the limits of the federal judicial authority
i. Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
ii. U.S is a party
iii. Between two or more states
iv. Between State and citizen of another state
v. Between citizens of different states
vi. Between citizens of the same state claiming Lands under Grants from different states
vii. Between a state, or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects
iv. Article IV § 1
1. “Full Faith & Credit..”
a. Requires one state recognize and enforce judgments of another state
i. Ex) Court in State A enters a judgment for $100,000 against D, but plaintiff cannot find any assets of D within State A to satisfy the judgment. D’s only assets turn out to be a large bank account at a bank located in State B. Under the “Full Faith & Credit Clause,” plaintiff commences a summary proceeding in a court in State B, records State A’s judgment, and can ten obtain a writ of execution from the State B court enforcing State A’s judgment against any assets of D located in State B.
b. *Judgments are entitled to “Full Faith & Credit” clause ONLY if the court rendering had jurisdiction to do so.
B. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Questions to Ask :
1. Is there a federal issue at all?
2. Does the federal issue “give rise” to the plaintiff’s claim?
**This was the question in Mottley **
3. If there is a federal issue that is not the basis for the plaintiff’s claim, is it sufficiently important to “federalize” the case?
i. 28 U.S.C. § 1331
1. “Arising Under” : Narrower than Article III §2
a. Statutory meaning of “arising under” is more narrow than the constitutional meaning
i. Unless covered by one of the narrow statutes, or a claim based directly on the Constitution or a federal statute, the claim cannot be brought into federal court unless on appeal from a state court judgment.
ii. Article III § 2
1. “Arising Under”: Broader than §1331
a. Constitutional definition of “arising under” is broader than the statutory meaning
iii. * Does the case fall within one of the enumerated categories of Article III Section 2 and has Congress further authorized the lower federal courts to assume that jurisdiction?
1. Rule 8 (a):
a. “Well Pleaded Complaint Rule” Requires every federal complaint to begin with a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.”
b. Ex) Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley
· Plaintiff receives settlement from R.R. for lifetime pass in response to injuries plaintiff received in prior incident
· Congress passes legislation making free passes unlawful—believing free transportation was being used to bribe public officials
· Defendant R.R. refused to honor free passes for Plaintiff
· Plaintiff brings suit in Federal Court
o Bill congress passed does prohibit free passes under circumstances
o Bill is in conflict with 5th Amendment Due Process: depriving Plaintiff’s due process rights
· Federal Trial court granted plaintiff relief
· Supreme Court
o Overruled because Federal Trial court never considered if the federal courts had jurisdiction.
o Found that this was a Breach of Contract complaint with federal defenses being used.
o “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”
o “Arising under” does not include every federal question that my come about in the case. The “well pleaded complaint” but state a cause of action that arises under.
· Case was appealed to Supreme Court AGAIN:
o Here[D1] , the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to decide Mottley after the case went back through the State Court Jurisdiction. Under Article III “Arising Under” is broader, which is what the Supreme Court operates under.
c. Hypothetical:
· Plaintiff sue defendants on claim arising under federal law
· Parties settle by signing an agreement
· The case is dismissed by agreement of the parties with no reference to the settlement agreement
· Plaintiff sues defendant for violation of agreement
· Is there federal question jurisdiction?
o NO, the settlement agreement is an ordinary contract, whose breach does not arise under Federal Law
o BUT, if the agreement had been a part of the judgment, the breach would be under federal law because federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce their own judgments
iv. Options for Challenging Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
1. Rule 12(b)(1): Dismiss for lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
a. Attack the Jurisdiction
risdiction
· At the time the claim was filed (citizenship determined)
o S (Greece) v. F (Perm Res. MD)
§ *During litigation F becomes citizen of U.S. however this is irrelevant because citizenship and jurisdiction determined at the time the lawsuit is filed
· Federal Court holds for S
· F appeals on the merits
· Court of Appeals asks for brief jurisdiction and without reaching the merits, dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Rule 12(b)(1)
o Reasoning for Dismissal
§ If read literally, the 1988 amendment to §1332 would allow for diversity in this case, however this would expand diversity from where it wasn’t previously; thus, allowing a lawsuit by one alien to be brought against another alien without a citizen of a state on either side of the litigation.
§ 1988 amendment to §1332 “Clearly appears to have been intended only to eliminate subject matter jurisdiction of cases between a citizen and an alien living in another state.”
ii. 28 U.S.C. §1332 (c): Corporation
1. “A corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which is has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business”
a. Except:
i. When there is a direct action against an Insurer of a policy
1. Such insurer shall be a citizen of any state which the insured is a citizen
a. As well as any state where the insurer is incorporated and has its principle place of business
2. Nerve Center
a. Where the businesses’ executive and administrative functions are controlled
3. Muscle
a. Where the everyday activities are located
b. Where the greatest amount of contact is with the public
iii. 28 U.S.C. §1332 (d): Class Actions
4. Any member of the class of Plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different than from any defendant
5. In class actions it takes more to destroy diversity
6. BUT: The district court has discretion
iv. 28 U.S.C. §1359
7. A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
[D1]The federal court would have had jurisdiction in the original filing of Mottley because of Article III?
[D2]Claim preclusion restricts this claim from being refilled in State Court, correct?
[D3]Can a foreign citizen bring a lawsuit against a U.S. defendant?
[D4]Greek Citizen v. Maryland Citizen: Diversity? §1332 does not state a foreign citizen v. a US citizen
