Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court’s Power to Decide the Type of Case Before It
Only way for a federal court to get subject matter jurisdiction;
Diversity
Federal Question; U.S.C. 1331
CB Supp; p.308; Federal law creates cause of action, OR -P’s right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.
Cases; Pennoyer v. Neff, International Shoe, Asahi
SMJ; What court you can go to; State or Federal
Federal court
On top of Subject Matter Jurisdiction;
Personal Jurisdiction; Court has jurisdiction over person or their property
Territorial Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal Question;
Motley rule; court will only look at what’s necessary for the complaint
You cannot anticipate defenses
Interpreting the constitution
USC §1331
Well pleaded complaint rule- you can’t try to cheat them and add in an extra element
If your claim was for battery; can’t say there’s a question of negligence that’s a federal question…
U.S.C. §1331,
Pennoyer v. Neff
P’s are not free to bring suit wherever they choose
Minimum Contacts Test
Grable case, p.542
The gov’t had a strong interest in case
D sued in state court- claimed he was not served properly- federal issue…
Would this destroy the balance
Whether or not he was served properly is an important issue
D wasn’t served right- it was important because it was a tax issue
Kind of a unique case… when else is a P going to get a service of process
Merrell Dow
If jury can find for P w/o federal Q then no federal jurisdiction
Federal Q includes admirality q’s, controversies between states, US vs. foreigners, amount in controversy doesn’t matter- that’s for diversity!
Diversity
USC 1332, p.308 of supp
In text; p.549
If P and D are from diff states/ or one from another country- and amount in controversy is more than $75,000
Sheehan;
Determining the guys’ citizenship
Whether there was diversity
He was a citizen of the state that allowed him to have diversity
Del Vecchio v. Conseco, p.558
At least one P’s claim has to be over $75,000 (one P can have multiple claims- the total amount of claims has to be over $75,000) if ONE has diversity- the others get supplemental
Also tried to argue Punitive damages
There has to be a legal certainty that the amount in controversy claimed can’t be reached
Punitive damages; you look at them skeptically
Whether or not it matters if all P’s have $75,000 claim or not…
Possible scope of diversity jurisdiction- interpreting constitution
Interpreting USC- Del Vecchio… and another case?
Constitution; Only one P has to be different from one D
USC; All P’s are from different states from All D’s
NOW; USC allows
Personal Jurisdiction
P’s are not free to bring suit wherever they choose… what state P can bring a suit.
Due to 14th Amendment- due process; court’s cant enter judgment against D w/o a fair judicial procedure.
Minimum contacts test
Applies to both Corporations and individuals
Limitations on personal jurisdiction found in long-arm statutes are distinct from constitutional limits imposed by minimum contacts test
D may have sufficient contacts w/ a state to support minimum contacts jurisdiction even though she did not act WITHIN the state
Min Conts analysis focuses on time when D ACTED not time of the lawsuit
Stuff about Minimum Contacts
When D doesn’t live in the state- have to determine how many contacts D has with the state to determine if its fair for him to be sued there.
International Shoe
Courts of a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over D if she has such minimum contacts w/ the state that it would be fair to require her to return and defend a lawsuit in the state.
Whether jurisdiction is permissible depends on the “quality and nature
o support jurisdiction…
Actions must be directed towards the state for purposeful availment
Placement in stream of commerce is not enough
You can also look at public policy to determine whether court should have jurisdiction
P from Taiwan, D from Japan; California court said it just DIDN”T make sense to rule on that case
The purpose for asking whether D has taken advantage of the benefits and protections of the state’s laws is to evaluate D’s contacts w/ the state to determine whether they are of the “quality and nature” to support jurisdiction.
“D may be sued in the state on this claim under the minimum contacts test because it has purposely conducted activities there and the claim arises out of this purposeful contact”
Purposeful Availment
Defining the “quality and nature” that makes a contact sufficient to support jurisdiction
D must have made a deliberate choice to relate to the state in some meaningful way before she has to bear the burden of defending there
Other factors in Jurisdiction…
Interest of the forum state in providing redress to its citizens
Interest of P in obtaining relief in a convenient forum
Interest of states in enforcing their substantive law or policy
Extent of the invonvenience to D if she were forced to defend
Statutory Limits on Personal Jurisdiction
Even if it’s constitutionally permissible for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction in a case- court may still lack power to call D before it
DUE PROCESS only defines the outer bounds of permissible
