Fabio Arcila
Civil Procedure
Fall 2014
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
I. General information
A. The power of a state or federal court over the subject matter of the case or controversy
B. Types:
1. General SMJ à power to adjudicate all kinds of civil actions
2. Exclusive SMJ à sole power to hear specific kinds of cases (ex. Domestic relations)
3. Concurrent SMJ à claims can be adjudicated in either federal or state court
C. Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction
D. Courts of original jurisdiction à where complaints are filed to initiate lawsuits
E. SMJ is not waivable à can be asserted at any time, through appeal
II. Article III (Constitution)
A. Section 1. We have one federal court = Supreme Court
B. Section 2. Supreme court can hear cases that:
1. Arise under this Constitution, Laws of the US, and Treaties
2. Are between citizens of different States
III. Federal Question Jurisdiction: Arising under federal law
A. 28 USC §1331
B. Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule à Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
1. A case arises under federal question when federal law is intrinsic to complaint iself
2. Must appear on the face of the complaint, and not merely by anticipated defense
a. The fact that Δ’s counterclaim may arise under is not sufficient to provide SMJ
3. Federal issue must not be frivolous
IV. Diversity Jurisdiction
A. 28 USC §1332 (default statute; applies only in federal district court)
1. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and
2. It is between citizens of 2 different States
B. Rule of complete diversity (Statutory limitation only)
1. Means that no single Π may be a citizen of the same state as any single Δ
2. Citizenship is determined at the time the complaint is filed (does not matter if you move)
a. Domicile à the place where you intend to remain – Lundquist v. Precision Valley
3. Citizenship of Corporations [28 USC §1332(c)(1)]
a. The state of its incorporation, and
b. Where it has its principal place of business (nerve center)
C. Amount in controversy
1. Based on a good faith claim by Π at the time the complaint is filed (even if recovers less)
2. Limited to compensation
3. Aggregation:
a. A single Π with 2 or more unrelated claims against a single Δ may combine claims to meet $75,000.01 or more
b. Two or more Πs who each have a single claim against a single Δ may not combine claims if they are unrelated
· If they are related, they may be able to aggregate to meet $75,000.01 or more
c. If one Π has exceeded $75,000 and a second Π has less than $75,000 claim against a single Δ, they may combine if the claim of Π #2 arises under federal question
D. Exceptions:
1. 28 USC §1335: Interpleader (minimal diversity)
a. Allowed because complete diversity is only statutory, and not constitutionally required
b. Applies to both individual and corporation
2. Exclusive State Jurisdiction
a. If claim belongs to exclusive state jurisdiction (ex. Divorce), federal Ct will refuse to hear case even if parties are diverse and amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
3. Improper joinder
a. No diversity if party has been improperly or collusively joined to invoke diversity
V. Supplemental Jurisdiction
A. These are claims that do not fall under §§1331 and 1332 à not provided in Constitution
1. Provides additional SMJ over individual cases that by themselves do not satisfy federal question and/or diversity
2. The claim you are trying to get into Fed. Ct. must share a common nucleus of operative facts with the underlying claim, such that it arises from the same case or controversy (always includes same T/O)
B. 28 USC §1367
1. Sub (a) à default provision
a. Unless (b) and (c) applies, DCt shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims when they additional parties or claims are so related to the claims in action within the original jurisdiction (federal question/diversity) that they form the same case or controversy under Article III.
b. For this to apply:
· Must have at least 2 claims, and
· At least one of the claims filed in federal court must have primary jurisdictional basis
2. Sub (b) à only for diversity (cannot used SJ to overcome lack of diversity)
a. If the only basis for original jurisdiction is diversity (only §1332), the court shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under Sub (a)
b. Rejection of supplemental jurisdiction even if granted in Sub (a)
c. Aim is to prevent Π from gaming the system through amendment and/or joinder
3. Sub (c) à court’s discretion
a. Court may refuse to grant supplemental jurisdiction under Sub (a) if:
· The claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law
· The State claim substantially predominates over federal claims
· Ct has dismissed all claims of federal jurisdiction
· In exceptional circumstances
VI. Removal
A. Process by which Δ removes an action from state court to federal court
1. Only Δ can remove to Federal à To equalize the playing field
a. Π chooses to file in whichever court allowed
b. Δ can remove to federal court, if claim was filed in State court
c. Δ cannot remove even if they were served a counterclaim
B. Statutes for removal:
1. 28 USC §1441 à Removal in general
2. 28 USC §1446 à Removal procedure
3. 28 USC §1447 à Post-removal procedure
C. 28 USC §1441(a)
1. Permits Δ to remove to federal court when there is either federal question or diversity issue (as sometimes Π chooses to file within state court for these issues; could have originally been brought in Fed. Ct.)
2. 28 USC §1446(b)(2)(A) à all Δs must consent to removal
3. The action may only be removed to a federal court within the geographical location of the original state court
a. Δ may not move to federal if any Δ is a citizen of that Forum State or the case is filed in the Δ’s forum state
4. Δ must file for removal within 30 days from date of service
5. 28 USC §1446(d) – Δ must file a notice of removal
a. Π files a motion to remand if he does not want removal (within 30 days after case has been removed)
D. Δ who files a permissive counterclaim in State Ct. probably waives the right to remove
E. Compulsory counterclaim probably dos not waive the right to remove
THE ERIE PROBLEM (what do we mean when we say “law”)
I. Pre-Erie World: Swift v. Tyson
A. Rules of Decision Act (RDA): Gave federal judges broad discretion on any state issue raised in federal court, like diversity issues
B. Legal Formalism (enlightenment and science)
1. View that state and federal judges have equal competence in interpreting case law
2. Consequences of Swift: (expanded federal judicial power)
a. Forum and Judge shopping
b. Disadvantaging the in-state party
C. Legal Realism (undermines Swift)
1. View that laws are made by men and it does not exist without authority behind it
a. As a federal judge, you must defer to the State interpretation of the law
D. Take away: Federal judge is bound by State law, but has discretion in interpreting common law (RDA is limited to State law)
II. Eire World and Post-Erie [applied as toolbox like PJ à START with HANNA à REA analysis]
A. Eire R.R. v. Tompkins (overruled Swift bc it was deemed unconstitutional)
1. RDA now means: Inclusion of state common law
a. Take away: Federal judges must follow state law and state c
n Oregon
B. This established 2 factors in determining constitutionality of PJ:
1. Degree of the contacts with the state
2. The relationship between those contacts and the lawsuit filed
C. This is a Specific Jurisdiction case
V. Types of PJ:
A. Specific Jurisdiction à actions within the state gave rise to the claims within that state
B. General Jurisdiction à contacts within the state are continuous and systematic despite the claim and contact being unrelated
Regular, systematic and continuous contact in the state
Isolated, casual and sporadic contacts with the state
Contacts unrelated to the lawsuit
General personal jurisdiction will exist if the contacts are substantial, continuous, and systematic
Personal jurisdiction will not exists
Contacts related to the lawsuit
Personal jurisdiction will exist as with the case in International Shoe
Some isolated contacts by virtue of their nature, quality and circumstances are sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction on a related lawsuit
VI. Specific Jurisdiction (refining Minimum Contacts) à ALWAYS start here
A. Stream of Commerce Theories
1. Gray v. Am. Radiator (Foreseeability)
a. The Δ must knowingly place its products in the stream of commerce, and
b. The resulting injury must have occurred within the forum state
2. World Wide Volkswagen
a. Additional requirement in SOC à the product must be purchased within the forum state
b. Foreseeability is relevant, but by itself, is not sufficient
3. Asahi v. Superior Court (Global Market) à SOC+ (not binding, but persuasive)
a. 4 Justices à Δ must show that he purposefully availed of the forum state
· Mere awareness that it might enter the SOC is not sufficient
b. 8 Justices agreed à focus on Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (not MC)
· Factors to be considered for TNFP&SJ:
ú Burden of Δ
ú Interest of forum state
B. Tag Jurisdiction – Burnham v. Superior Ct. (both PJ and service of process)
1. Involves (were summons and complaint properly given)
2. Back to Power theory
3. Non-binding decision, but persuasive
4. Presence in forum state + Service of notice in forum state = Personal Jurisdiction
VII. General Jurisdiction (Last Resort)
A. We can basically sue Δ about any issue, so long as the Δ has more than continuous and systematic contacts in that forum state.
1. Contacts must be so much that the Δ is essentially home in that forum state
B. Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown
1. Subsidiary company à is always independent of the parent company
2. Huge implications: because of pervasiveness theory
a. There might be places where Δ has such abundant contacts in the forum state that they can be sued there (essentially home there)
