Select Page

Civil Procedure I
St. Johns University School of Law
Cavanagh, Edward D.

< >Must be capable of being solved by the courts and be best solved in courts, not another venue Judicial Power
< >Webster Eisenlohr, Inc. v. Kalodner – Judge does not have the authority to investigate matters outside of the controversy presented by the parties in litigation. Court does not have general investigatory powers.Frummer v. Hilton Hotels – In deciding cases, role of judge is to do the right thing. The judge may raise a conflict of law that neither side argued if he chooses, system gives judge leeway on choice of intervention.Justiciability Problems
< >Political QuestionsAnother form of government better able to resolve the issueCudahy Chamber of Commerce v. Quirk – the court is not capable of deciding whether or not water fluoridation is good, voters should decide that through the legislative processGeorgia High School Ass’n v. Waddell – Referee's errors in games do not present judicial controversiesCourt will not hear cases if no controversy is present (case has already been settled); will not hear cases where one or both parties lack a continuing interest. If case is moot, both parties will not put their best foot forward.DeFunis v. Odegaard – Since DeFunis was already in his last semester, making a decision about the admissions policy would not affect him graduating (outcome) what if the π got sick in his final semester? The is2sue would not be moot because he would not be allowed to re-enroll.Collusive Suits – conspiratorial arguments, friendly suits, not justiciableAdvisory OpinionsThe court will not issue opinions that are purely advisory and do not affect a controversy. Purpose of adversary system is to decide suits between two parties.You must be the appropriate plaintiff to bring the action/assert claim in courtStake in the litigation?Best position to sue? POWER v. Thompson – POWER had no standing to bring the suit because it has no STAKE in the litigation.  No member of its group was denied right to register.  The injury must be more immediate and must be their injury, not another's. Hollingsworth v. Perry –The official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so Court will not adjudicate issues not ready to be decided. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Power of the court to adjudicate particular types of cases
Does Court have power to hear this case?
< >Federal courts have limited SMJ Can only hear what Congress authorizes them to hear; not authorized in statute by Congress, cannot hear the case (child custody, probate a will)SMJ cannot be conferred by consent à Lack of SMJ can be raised at any timeBurden of plaintiff to plead/prove SMJ jurisdiction     B. Domicile
< >When child, it is that of your parentsIntent to returnMultiple residences –> look at bank records, license, voting, tax records4. Permanent place of abode
5. Changing domicile
< >Do not lose present domicile until you have a new one. ex/ man on ship, not domiciled in location he is moving to because he has not dwelled in new location yet 
Types of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
< >Diversity – Must be determined at the time of filing 
2 Elements of Diversity (required) – 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)
< >Controversy must exceed $75,000Suit must be between citizens of different states – Citizen of U.S. and DOMICILED in the stateDomiciled – Dwelling, Place you call home, permanent residenceYou can have only 1 Domicile, many residencesRooted in English Common law – birth, parents, law (Custodial) – You are given citizenship domicile of your birthplace, until you change it.By objective criteria the court determines your domicile (Presence in a state)Where do you write as your home on tax forms?*General rule is you don’t lose your present domicile until you acquire a new one; saying you will never return is not enough 
< >Complete Diversity of Citizenship Strawbridge v. Curtiss (1806) Every π must be completely diverse from every defendant. Each person concerned in the interest must be competent to sue or liable to be sued, in those courts. “Where an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state.” Court has no jurisdiction is any of the parties fail to meet diversity requirements.Multiple π (NJ) v. multiple ∆ (NY) and 1 ∆ (NJ) –> no diversityNewman-Green v. Alejandro (1989) → π(Illinois) v. ∆(4 Venezuelan citizens + U.S. citizen but domiciled in Venezuela “stateless”)each person must meet the requirements of the diversity statute, U.S. citizen not a foreigner, but not domiciled in any state. Case dismissed because no diversity under . I.  Place of incorporation [can only be one place]  
II. Principle place of business
< >Citizens in every state in which a member is a citizen of  
< >Hertz Corp. v. Melinda Friend (2010) – Corporations’ PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS is where it’s “nerve center” is – Predictable and Clear Nerve Center Test:
< >State where their principle place of business is (only one PPB)Place where majority of business is conductedCorporate HeadquartersWhere officers are based and decisions are madePlace where board meetings take place  
< >Newman v. Larrain: Stateless so there is no diversity. Has no domicile. Everyone has a domicile until they get a new one.  
< >Special Cases of DiversityDomestic relations: Ankenbrandt v. Richards (1992)Ex: π (Missouri) v. ∆ (Louisiana) π sues over a domestic relation case for abusing the π’s daughters.There is no domestic relations exception to federal SMJ but it does not mean that such courts necessarily must exercise jurisdiction over such cases that state courts are more eminently suited to work for these types of cases b/c federal lacks the close association w/ state and local gov. organizations who are dedicated to handling issues in: divorce, alimony, and child custody cases.Court heard this case because it was a tort case, limitation is on cases of divorce, alimony, child custody.Probate proceedings: Marshall v. Marshall (2006)Probate exception does not bar federal jurisdiction in all cases of probate matters. π’s claim did       not involve administration of an estate, probate of a will, or any other purely probate matter; it
      alleges a tort. Does not matter that it arose out of issues brought up in probate court.
2) Interpleader 28 USC § 1335
< >When there is a dispute with multiple claimants and the possibility for multiple liabilities, Congress allows the stakeholder to pay the money to the court, names all possible claimants in the action, and asks the court to decide who is entitled to what.Minimal Diversity is required State Farm v. Tashire à Only look to minimal diversity between π’s as opposed to complete diversity between π and Δ.Class Action Fairness Act 2005 – In any case where the amount of controversy exceeds 5 million, and brought in state court, it may be removed to federal court3) Federal Question Jurisdiction
< >§ 1331 → Federal courts have the jurisdiction to hear all civil actions “arising under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States           
< >Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule → FQJ only where the federal issue appears to on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, basis of recovery must be a federal crime, it i

< >Gives jurisdiction to every claim in a case that arises for the same “transaction or occurrence” – for same   case or controversy
< >In diversity cases there is no supplemental jurisdiction for claims by the π.Prevents π from evading   diversity jurisdiction by bringing in the Δ’s who meet the requirement 1st, and then bringing in the Δ’s who
< >In federal question cases, supplemental jurisdiction may be granted for state-law claims that are closely   related to the federal claim
Subsequent addition of Parties
< >The federal rules permit numerous methods by which additional parties not originally named may become involved in an action.A claim by or against an additional party, like any claim in federal court must satisfy some basis of federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, such as diversity or Federal Q.If the claim does not, but arises from a common nucleus of operative fact, the party asserting the claim might invoke supplemental jurisdiction – For cases based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction may not be used to support: 1) Claims by πs against persons made parties under Rule 14 (impleader), 19 (compulsory joinder), 20 (permissive joinder), or 24 (intervention). 
**28 USC § 1367: (a) recognizes pendant party jurisdiction, (b) codifies Owen, need independent SMJ for supplemental jurisdiction, cannot defeat diversity under § 1332, (c) recognizes court’s discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction, using factors mentioned in Gibbs
5) REMOVAL- 28 USC § 1441
< >RequirementsRemoval allowed under §1441, Procedure for Removal under §1446Can only remove from a state court to a federal court in same districtRemovable if there is federal SMJ; Only if case could have been heard by federal court in the 1st placeCan remove only up to one year after filing in a diversity actionCan’t remove if any Δ is a citizen of the state forum they are trying to remove fromIn diversity cases, only the Δ’s can remove, π’s can never removeIf multiple Δ’s, must all agree to removeRemove a case by simply filing a petition in the federal court you want to remove to, and is served to all the π’s involvedOnce the removal is filed, even if BOGUS AND NO BASIS FOR SMJ – state court can’t do anything about it because it loses SMJ in federal court – if π wants to argue there is no case for removal and wants to argue in state court, has to do it through federal court 
< >Hypos A from NY, B from Iowa. A sued B in Iowa state court for breach of K.
Can B remove to federal court? à NO.
1441(b)(2) – party served is a citizen of the state where the action is brought. 
< >If B sued A in Iowa state court for breach of K first, could A remove to federal court? à YES. §1441(a) – district court has orig. jurisdiction under §1332(a). 
< >If B sued A and C in Iowa state court for breach of K, and C is a citizen of CT, can A remove the action to fed. court? à Yes, if C joins or consents – §1446(2)(A)