CIVIL PROCEDURE
Professor Moore – Fall 2016
I. Introduction
Civil procedure refers to the rules that control all aspects of civil trials.
Two Court Systems
Federal Government
State Government
Article III of U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to establish a separate system of federal courts, which co-exists with the courts of the states.
Congress may get rid of lower courts if they wanted to
Trial Courts: Courts of original jurisdiction
Cases are litigated through trial
AKA: Superior courts, district courts, circuit courts, depending on state
Appellate Courts:
Hears appeals from the trial courts in that system
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Choosing a proper/strategic court)
Jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear and decide a case. A federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy and personal jurisdiction over the parties. Venue is the location where a case is heard.
A court’s power or authority over dispute or remedy at hand
Requirements: Constitutional & Statutory (Focus on this on exams!)
Unlike personal jurisdiction, the parties may not waive the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Any party or the court may object to the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, including on appeal.
Lack of SMJ: If the court determines at any time that it lacks SMJ, the court must dismiss the action. Rule 12(h)
Diversity Jurisdiction [U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1332] — (Focused on parties)
Federal courts have the authority to hear civil actions between parties that have complete diversity of citizenship, if the claim satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement excess of $75,000.
1332(a)(1): Citizens of different states
1332(a)(2): Citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state
1332(a)(3): Citizens of different states in which citizens of a foreign state are additional parties
1332(a)(4): Foreign state (country) as P, and citizens of a state or of different states
Complete Diversity (As interpreted by SCOTUS in Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 1806)
For diversity jurisdiction to be invoked, no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Diversity jurisdiction also exists if citizens of a state are on one side of an action and foreign citizens are on the other. As long as there is a citizen of a U.S. state on one side of the controversy, jurisdiction is not destroyed if there are foreign citizens present on each side of the action.
Mas v. Perry (1974)
P brought suit against D (LA) in LA. It stemmed from P finding out that D was spying on them. P alleged damage of $100,000. D alleged lack of complete diversity. Mrs. Mas’ domicile was in MS, not LA (where they rented apartment from D), and lacked requisite intention to remain in LA. A woman’s domicile does not change solely by reason of her marriage.
Citizenship
An individual is a citizen of a state when individual is a US citizen and where his or her domicile is located as of the time the action is commenced.
Domicile, under Gordon, has 2 elements:
Individual resides in the state,
Individual intends to reside there indefinitely
If not clear, courts may look to such factors as what state issued her driver’s license, where party is registered to vote, etc.
Gordon v. Steele (1974) –
Gordon, a college student in ID, filed a suit for malpractice in PA, where she previously lived with her parents. Doctors filed motion for lack of SMJ. P’s intention was not to move back to PA; had an apartment in ID; only visited PA for eye treatment; intends to marry in PA.
A corporation is a citizen of any state in which it is incorporated AND the state where it has its principal place of business (PPOB). § 1332(c)(1)
Hertz v. Friend, SCOTUS (2010)
A corporation’s principal place of business will usually be where its HQ is. The U.S. Supreme Court adopted the nerve center test, under which a corporation’s principal place of business is “where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities,” which is usually its corporate headquarters.
An unincorporated entity (e.g., partnerships) is a citizen of every state of which its partners or members are citizens of.
Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, SCOTUS (2016)
Americold’s citizenship was based on citizenship of its members, which included its shareholders.
A legal representative of the estate of a decedent (e.g., executor, administrator) is ONLY a citizen of the state of which the decedent was a citizen. § 1332(c)(2)
Amount in Controversy
For diversity jurisdiction to be invoked, the amount demanded by the plaintiff in the complaint must exceed $75,000. [28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(3)] The fact that a plaintiff may recover less than $75,000 is irrelevant. For a party to successfully challenge the claimed amount in controversy, it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than $75,000. St. Paul Mercury
Aggregation
A single plaintiff may add together all of their claims against a single defendant, no matter how unrelated the claims are, to meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. A single plaintiff may also aggregate claims against multiple defendants, if the defendants are joint tortf
dgment Actions
Allows a party to bring a suit and ask the court to “declare” the rights of the parties before an alleged violation of rights takes place.
Congressional Control Over Federal Question Jurisdiction
Congress may selectively limit types of federal question cases the federal courts may hear
Article III, Section 1 gives Congress the power to ordain and establish lower federal courts.
Mottley (1908) – Federal law rose as a defense.
Mere allegation that an anticipated defense that arises from some provision of the Constitution does not create a federal question.
SMJ is only valid when a plaintiff’s own cause of action shows it is based upon federal laws
A complaint must allege some violation of Constitution or federal statute.
Supplemental Jurisdiction [28 U.S.C., § 1367]
The authority of the federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently.
Why supplemental jurisdiction?
Judicial economy
Convenience
Fairness to litigants
Constitutional Grant – Article III § 2
It “exists whenever there is a claim ‘arising under the Constitution, the laws of the U.S, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority,’ . . . and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional ‘case.’”
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)
Test for when a federal court has constitutional power to hear a state-law claim:
Claim must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact
P would ordinarily be expected to try both claims in one judicial proceeding
Discretion
The federal court is not required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
Even if SJ exists, a court may decline jurisdiction for the following reasons:
Claim arises a novel issue of state law
State-law claim substantially predominates
Court has dismissed all federal claims with original jurisdiction
