Debbie Basset for Civil Procedure Fall 2013
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
· The court’s power to act with respect to the generic type of dispute before the court in the posture in which it has been filed. Whether the court has the power or authority to hear that particular type of case.
· For a federal court to hear a case it has to have authority in the US constitution and congress has to have passed a federal statute that allows the court to hear that type of case, therefore
o State courts have wider jurisdiction than federal jurisdiction
o However If the state courts have been given the power to hear the case, they cannot pick and choose which ones they want to pick, this is reserved for US supreme court. If the case was properly filed then the court is obligated to hear the case even if it is an unpopular law.
o If it is federal law passed by congress that does not say if its concurrent or exclusive then it is concurrent. Same for state courts. They must both state exclusiveness.
· Subject Matter Jurisdiction cannot be waived or consented on by the parties. But can be challenged at any time using a 12b1 motion
· FEDERAL SMJ CAN BE EITHER ARISING UNDER OR DIVERSITY
Concurrent State and Federal Jurisdiction
· There is usually concurrent state jurisdiction on most federal cases.
· If the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in question is over 75,000 a suit can usually be brought in either state or federal
· A suit under federal civil rights law can be brought generally in federal court but there is not reason why it can’t be brought in state. State must hear those claims.
There are some claims for which federal court jurisdiction is exclusive
· Federal patent and copyright laws
· Federal bankruptcy laws
· Actions against consuls of foreign states
· Actions to enforce fines
· Penalties and forfeitures under the law of the United States
ARISING UNDER
Article 3 Section 2 provides constitutionality for arising under.
· Broader
28 USC Section 1331 provides the statute for arising under.
· Narrower
From the Motley Case we see that the well pleaded complaint rule must show that there is clear arising under.
· The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States
· The plaintiff’s claim and not the defendant’s claim must arise under federal law.
· The mere presence of federal question somewhere in the case does not create federal jurisdiction, it must be in the claim.
o The defendant’s federal law defense does not count not does anticipation of a federal defense by the plaintiff.
o Can’t get arising under because of anticipation of defense that would raise issue of federal law.
Category 1 is the easy way and most cases come under this way.
· Must satisfy the well pleaded complaint rule, must look at the plaintiff’s complaint and not the defendant’s answer
Category 2-rare
· The Supreme Court ends up saying that in certain cases if the plaintiff phrases its complaint in state law there can be arising under if the following conditions are met: Grable Test
o Does the state claim raised a federal action AND
§ Ex. State claim rising issues with the IRS
o The federal issue in dispute has to be substantial and the central issue AND
o It wont increase the workload too much for the federal courts and it wont lead to a lot of other cases being filed in federal courts. It will try to make the decision once and for all
· IT must still come from the plaintiff’s claims not a defense.
Other Notes
· If the judge sees a lack of federal SMJ then it is dismissed by that court, then so as long the statute of limitations hasn’t run you can go ahead and file in the state court
· The defendant can bring or file a motion or moves for dismissal based on jurisdiction. The D will look to see if they should even be in federal court
· You can legally file in both systems at the same time, costs more $ so corporations are only likely to do this. Which ever court reaches a judgment first prevails, the other one gets dismissed on grounds of preclusion
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
Article 3 Section 2-constitutionality
· Judicial pow
erly or Collusively made”
· A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party by assignment or otherwise has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.
· One may change citizenship for the purpose of enabling himself to maintain a suit in federal court, but the change must be an actual legal change made with the intention of bringing about actual citizenship.
· Improper
o Intentional or inadvertent, as it could have been just a mistake
· Collusively
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSEY in excess of $75,000
Must be plead in good faith and if you want to challenge it you must prove that the damages are being inflated just to satisfy the amount requirement.
· Arising under v. diversity
o Originally the amount in controversy was a requirement for both but today there is only a requirement only on diversity
o Also some statutes may state the amount needed to be in controversy. Statutory caps may prevent a claim bc amount wont be satisfied.
· For non-monetary damages use one of two tests and then pick the one with the higher value. No exception for the $75k value
o Test 1 what is the value to the plaintiff if they win
o Test 2 what is the loss to the defendant if they lose.
§ Ex. Citizen wanting an injunction against a plywood company for smell, the plaintiff would sue based on their property value, but the D would state that under the possibility of closing the business, how much would this cost them
Go by the amount of the complaint not the actual amount recovered
1332b-but the plaintiff recovers less than the jurisdictional amount, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and impose costs on the plaintiff
