Civil Procedure
Vanlandingham
Spring 2013
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(Federal Question, Diversity jurisdiction, Supplemental, and Removal)
Definition
a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute.
b. Determines which two or more courts, located in the same geographic area, has the authority to hear the particular type of dispute in question.
c. Constitution has limits on SMJ of the federal court: Article III
d. Article III:
i. Section I. Power of U.S. vested in Supreme Court. SCOTUS only court derived from Constitution; others from Congress
ii. Section 2. Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. 3 categories are important:
· All cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treatises made, or which shall be made, under their Authority (statute implemented 28 U.S.C. s. 1331) FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
· Controversies….between Citizens of different states (statute implemented 28 U.S.C. s. 1332) DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
· Controversies…between a state, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects (statute implemented 28 U.S.C. s. 1332) DIVERSITY/ALIENAGE JURISDICTION
· Others:
· International issues: Ambassadors, ministers and consuls
· Admiralty and maritime (exclusive federal jurisdiction; not concurrent jurisdiction)
· U.S. is a party
· State v. citizens of different states
· Patent, copyright (exclusive federal jurisdiction; not concurrent jurisdiction)
· Trademarks (NOT exclusive federal jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction like most federal claims)
e. A Federal Court cannot hear a case where all the parties are either citizens of the same state, nor are not citizens of the United States. These cases must be heard in state courts.
1. Federal Question § 1331: state courts may not appropriately interpret federal laws; also addresses the balance of work load.
a. How to determine:
a. Created by/Holmes test (and must be well-pleaded complaint) OR
b. Embedded essential federal ingredient + Grable factors
c. EXCLUDED: counterclaim, inversing parties/declaratory judgment, defendant
b. Constitutional scope (Article 3, Sect. 2 – big circle/broad): If the basic suit (complaint or answer asserted by the original parties) involves any question of federal law, then it satisfies the constitutional definition of federal question.
c. Statutory scope (little circle/narrow) 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 United States.
a. Osborn v. Bank of the U.S. – The federal question has to be an original ingredient of the suit. (“federal ingredient;” if any federal question raised in the complaint or answer, then Article 3, Sect. 2 grants federal question jurisdiction.)
b. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley – The federal question must appear as part of the plaintiff’s cause of action set out in a well-pleaded complaint. Mottley rule s current and also called the well-pleaded complaint rule.
c. (Now) Well-pleaded complaint rule – to qualify for statutory federal question jurisdiction the presence of a federal question must appear in the plaintiff’s presentation of its case in the context of a “well-pleaded” complaint, that is, one that limits itself to a statement of its own cause of action.
§ Thus, a federal questions appearing as defenses raised in response to a complaint will not suffice to warrant federal question jurisdiction.
§ Neither will allegations in the complaint that simply anticipate and articulate potential federal law defenses serve as grounds for federal jurisdiction.
d. Two ways a court can grant federal question:
a. Holmes creation test – a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. (how most cases get into federal court.) by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes – This test determines when the well-pleaded complaint rule is met. A suit arises under the law that creates the problem, or cause of action. If the federal law creates a right, then the protected person has a right to a claim of federal question if that right has been violated; thus, the complaint on its face should meet the federal question jurisdiction.
b. Embedded Essential Federal Ingredient + Grable standards – Theories on determining whether a federal question jurisdiction is applicable when state law claims are asserted that require the determination of federal legal issues for their ultimate resolution.
§ Smith standard (1921) – state law claim could give rise to federal question jurisdiction so long as the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of federal law. SCOTUS first held that a state claim case may be under 1331 if the court must resolve a substantial issue of federal law first, or before it can decide the state law claim. Cause of action was the corporation breached its duty b/c it invested in bonds. The P claimed that the bank could only invest in valid federal securities and the bonds were invalid b/c they were unconstitutional; This still is based on the P’s claim. But Merrell Dow raised a few questions over Smith.
§ Merrell Dow (1986) standard – state law claims could give rise to federal question jurisdiction so long as the federal law at issue is substantial and disputed. The parties agreed the federal statute didn’t create a private right to
late jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. 1257 and Article 3, Sect. 2)
EX. New York Times v. Sullivan: Alabama chief Sullivan sued NYT for damages for libel. P (Alabama) v. NYT (NY), Clergy (AL). So no complete diversity jurisdiction. D was arguing that the libel standard is higher so you have to show actual malice (reckless disregard). P says in well-pleaded complaint NYT ran an editorial, it was false, I was harmed and D says 1st Amendment protects [this is raised as an anticipated defense], so higher standard but D is wrong. This is NOT a federally-embedded question under Grable; P wins, D appeals. The reason this went to SCOTUS because the appellant was raising a federal issue.
1. In order to get to SCOTUS, you can use § 1257 even if P has no original federal issue in the original complaint. So you can fail to get into federal court under §1331 and get to SCOTUS via §1257.
2. Here the privilege under the Constitution was the First Amendment. So as a public figure, you have to prove actual malice. (Clear & Convincing case)
Overview
2. Diversity Jurisdiction § 1332:
a. Elements: Complete Diversity + Amount in Controversy must exceed $75,000.
1. Citizens of different states – § 1332 (a)(1)
2. Alienage cases: citizen of a state v. alien/citizen or subject of foreign country – § 1332 (a)(2)
3. Diversity must exist at the time the suit is filed, not when cause of action occurred
4. Strawbridge case is the governing interpretation of complete diversity. NOTE: State courts are not subject to the $75,000 amount in controversy.
b. Complete Diversity; and
· Diversity is determined by citizenship at the time of the complaint.
· Every plaintiff must be of diverse citizenship from every defendant.
§ If one defendant and one plaintiff are citizens of the same state, there is no DJ.
· The key to determining the citizenship of individuals is to identify their state of domicile.
§ Domicile is residence (physical presence) within a state coupled with the intention to remain there for an indefinite period of time.
§ A person cannot have multiple domiciles, even though they may have multiple residences.
