Civ Pro Fall 2014 – Professor Margaret Russell
I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal Question: 18 USC §1331:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Does it arise under Constitution or laws of the U.S.?
Article III of US Constitution, Section 2: “Arising Under”
Well-pleaded complaint: Does the federal issue appear on face of the plaintiff's complaint? (not in answer, and not on basis an anticipated counterclaim)
Does the plaintiff’s cause of action/right to relief turn on/raise a substantial question of federal law (that the case involves some or mostly federal issues is not enough – when pared down does the recovery rest on a federal claim)
District court has jurisdiction where plaintiff claims right to relief under federal law, even if claims are dubious and ultimately dismissed based on lack of merit
Exceptions to well-pleaded complaint:
Protective jurisdiction – even though basis for jurisdiction is not found in Art. III Sect. 2 – federal interest is strong
Grable v. Darue: cause of action under state law but the answer under federal law – resolution depended upon the interpretation of federal tax law, that is what is “adequate notice” and did the IRS provide
Not like Merrell Dow: where plaintiff could succeed on any one of several state law claims despite private federal right of action due to violation of federal statute. Court held that negligence claims should be decided in state not federal courts
Holmes Test:
A suit “arises under the law” that creates the cause of action.
Problems:
Requires court to wait for both complaint and reply before determining jurisdiction
Not as clean as well-pleaded complaint
Defendants could remove to district court (against wishes of plaintiff) by making a federal counterclaim
Not consistent with independent sovereignty of states
Jurisdiction for lower federal courts over cases involving both federal and state claims:
(1) Is there a federal interest in bringing the questions in the case to bear, in a federal forum?
(2) Will the balance between state and federal courts be disrupted by allowing the case to be heard in federal court
(3) Will the federal court docket be impacted by the possible introduction of a myriad of cases, if jurisdiction is provided for the type of claim at issue?
District court has jurisdiction where plaintiff claims violation of federal law that adopts state standards.
Diversity: 28 USC § 1332
District courts shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions where
(a) amount exceeds $75,000 in controversy
(1) citizens of different States (2) between citizens and subjects of foreign states (3) foreign subjects as additional parties (4) a foreign state
(c) (1) corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every state and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and principal place of business (2) legal representative of estate of decedent is deemed to be citizen of same state as decedent
Aggregate: A plaintiff is allowed to aggregate amount in controversy for multiple claims against the same defendant; plaintiffs may not aggregate claims with other plaintiffs, however
If awarded less damages by court then claimed and less than $75K, it’s ok – does not distinguish as not a well-pleaded complaint – if done in good faith
· Complete diversity with respect to Ps and Ds (Ds can be from same state, Ps can be from same state).
Original/Concurrent Jurisdiction (state and federal are competent to hear case)
28 USC § 1338: Trademarks
Exclusive Jurisdiction (of federal district courts)
28 USC § 1338: Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights – No state court shall have jurisdiction.
§ 1333 Admiralty and maritime cases
Supplemental Jurisdiction: §1367
(a) Fed courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Art. III of US Constitution. Such claims will include joinder or intervention of additional parties.
Gibbs: “from the common nucleus of operative fact”
(b) claims by plaintiff have no supplemental jurisdiction if fed court has jurisdiction by §1332 Diversity.
· First Step: Is there an independent basis for jurisdiction over the claims? If No, then proceed with 1367
· §1367 must be used in conjunction with another claim arising under §1331 or §1332
· Over claims such as: 13(g), 13(a), 13(b), 14(a)
· No supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs to parties joined by 14,19,20, 24 (when in diversity)
· Claims by defendants are not limited by this rule (Ds can sue Ps that are joined, that lack diversity)
Defense to subject matter jurisdiction:
12(b)(1) /12(h)(3) can be raised at any time and may be raised by court – if no subject matter jurisdiction, court must dismiss.
II. Personal Jurisdiction
Ability of the court to exercise power over a particular defendant or their property.
In Personam
Forum court has power over the person of the defendant.
Requires notice and constitutionally sufficient relationship.
Notice:
· Rule 4(k)(2) Service of summons establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if subject to jurisdiction of state in which it sits (apply state long-arm statute).
· 4(e)(1) Deliver personally by a nonparty over 18 or substituted service by leaving copy at dwelling (with suitable person over 18), delivering to authorized agent, or by law of the state.
· Notice must be reasonably calculated to reach those who could be easily informed, under the circumstances, to present their objections. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank:
· Due process does not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the government may take his property. (prison received certified mail that was never delivered to the inmate whom it was addressed to – court held certified mail still
tate.
World Wide Volkswagen: Selling of VWs in NY, car accident in OK, VW not subject to personal jurisdiction. Foreseeability that cars used in other states, alone, not sufficient.
Relatedness of Claim to Contact
Claim asserted against defendant must arise from the D's contacts with the forum. Helicopteros.
Fairness: Must not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
§ Forum State's interest in protects its citizens – available redress in court
§ Convenience: burden of defendant
Who can afford to have the burden of litigating from home? (Relative positions of parties)
§ Intent/Purpose of conduct
§ Risk of inconsistent judgments: Buckeye Boiler: (jurisdiction by necessity) otherwise plaintiff would have been subjected to inconsistent judgments
§ Policy reasons: international relations (Helicopteros)
Long-Arm Statute:
· State statute that permits the court to obtain jurisdiction over persons not present in the state at time of service. May allow substituted service by certified mail.
· Cannot fail to give defendants full measure of due process required by Constitution, but state must grant statutory authority for court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
· Can be less than what Congress has allowed but not more than Int'l Shoe test. Omni Capital v. Rudolf, Bensusan Restaurant
(Can gap-fill if statutory authority is lesser than minimum contacts, but do not have to)
In Rem
· Jurisdiction over a thing. Court has the power to adjudicate over a piece of property within the state. Not personally binding on defendants, but binding on the status of property.
· Property must be attached to claim at outset.
· Notice required: Service by publication or posting of notice on property no longer adequate. If persons with affected interests have known addresses, must also be notified by ordinary mail. Mullane v. Central Han. Bank.
Quasi in Rem
Type I: Dispute related to rights in the property – close connection of litigation to property provides min. contacts.
Type II: Dispute unrelated to ownership of property.
· Minimum contacts test must apply (Shaffer v. Heitner)
· if a direct assertion of personal jurisdiction would violate the constitution, then it does not follow that an indirect assertion would be constitutional.
· Plaintiff must bring the asset before the court by attachment.
· Judgments limited to the value of the property attached – no res judicata effect (because of value cap)
