Subject Matter Jurisdiction
· SMJ is a court’s power to decide the type of case before it, jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought.
· also known as “competency of the court”
· has the sovereign properly given this court the power to entertain this type of action?
· SMJ separates the courts from other branches of government and differentiates the courts from one another
· Federal Cts. have limited jurisdiction. MD Cts. have general jurisdiction.
· Under 28 USC 1331, Fed. Cts. have original jurisdiction over boundary disputes between states, cases where US is a party, suits involving civil rights, patents and admiralty suits.
· Under Article 3 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving Ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the SC shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and to fact.
· Concurrent jurisdiction – both federal and state cts. have jurisdiction over the same subject matter and within the same territory. The litigant may choose the court in which to file the action.
· Constitution only requires only the Supreme Court, other courts are permitted
· Personal jurisdiction is the court’s jurisdiction to bring a person into its adjudicative process
· there must be a reason to try a case in the federal system and it must be specified in the complaint
· SMJ issues may be raised at any time during the case by either party or the ct. itself
· Under Rule 12(h)(3) whenever the court lacks jurisdiction it shall dismiss the action.
Areas of SMJ:
1. Federal question (Constitution, federal law, etc.)
2. Diversity of citizenship (with required jurisdiction amt., $75,000 or more)
3. Supplemental jurisdiction
Osteoimplant Technology, Inc. v. Rathe Productions, Inc.
– RPI sued OTI in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for failure to pay its debt to it. OTI failed to respond to the summons & complaint and the federal ct. entered a default judgment for full amount. RPI recorded the judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and U.S. District Court for District of MD. OTI filed motion to quash in U.S. District Court and Ct. denied. OTI then filed in Cir. Ct for Balto. Co. to vacate the NY Dist. Ct. decision and for reconsideration. Cir. Ct. for Balto. Co. denied OTI’s motion to vacate, alter and amend the judgment of the NY Dist. Ct.
– a state court in MD may not vacate, alter, or amend a judgment rendered by a foreign court; a judgment may only be altered by the court which initially rendered the decision (this prevents resjudicata, can’t try case again in another jurisdiction); a party who seeks and obtains a valid judgment in a foreign court should not and will not be required to relitigate on the merits.
– used to show the importance of jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction
Statutory basis is 28 U.S.C. § 1331 – federal district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions in which the matter in controversy “arises under the the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US.”
Constitutional basis is U.S, Constitution, Article III, Section 2 – permits Congress to give the federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over “all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution, the laws of the US, and Treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority.”
Basis can be: 1) If a federal law creates the cause of action, or 2) If P’s right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law (“P’s claim is predicated on an issue of unanswered federal law”)
One idea is If P’s right or immunity will be supported by one construction of federal law and defeated if given another construction.
If a federal question exists that has not been previously answered this confers federal jurisdiction
Bell v. Hood
The federal question must appear on the face of a well pleaded complaint. The court must then assume jurisdiction unless the issue of federal law is frivolous (has already been decided by the court or is precluded by prior decisions) or contrived (the state claim predominates – “making a federal case out of something”). If we don’t know the answer to a federal question, then assume jurisdiction.
– when there is a question of whether or not the federal question is on the face of the complaint, the court must assume jurisdiction to determine it.
– uncertainty one way or another creates jurisdiction.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
– Claim must be based on federal law
– Federal question can’t arise from anticipating a defense from Defendant OR D’s defense does not create federal jurisdiction
Diversity Jurisdiction (Must also meet jurisdictional amount)
Statutory basis is 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Diversity requirements:
– Citizens of different states (P from MD – D from RI)
– Citizen of a state and citizen of a foreign country (P from MD – D from Albania)
– Citizens of different states and in which citizens of a foreign state are additional parties. (P from MD, P from Albania – D from RI, D from Poland)
– A foreign state as a Plaintiff.
need complete cross party diversity – no D is a citize
sdiction when a party has been improperly or collusively made or joined. (28 U.S.C. 1359)
Assigned Claims – Diversity jurisdiction will be created when the assignee whose citizenship differs from that of the debtor has a substantial interest in the claim, but not if the assignee is merely a collection agent with no bona fide stake in the claim. ie. Kramer v. Caribbean Mills
Fradulent Joinder – Rose v. Giamatti, Rose tries to prevent case from being removed to federal court on basis of diversity by claiming that Reds and MLB are from Ohio. Because Reds and MCL are “nominal parties” with no “actual interest over the subject matter in the case they are fraudulently joined.”
Removal Jurisdiction
· Statutory basis is 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Any action brought in state ct. of which the federal cts. would have original jurisdiction may be removed to the federal dist. ct. while action is pending.
If P files in state court but could have filed in federal court, the D may remove the suit from the state court to federal ct.
If the Fed. Ct. finds that the claim lacks federal jurisdiction, then the claim is usually dismissed, unless it was originally brought in state court, then it can be remanded back to state court.
Under 1441(a) only a defendant can remove, all defendants must join in the removal. If not, can’t be removed.
§1333-1346 deal with patents, civil rights, USPS, interpleader, etc.
Under 1441a, a suit goes “to the district court of the U.S.” only in cases which could originally have been brought.
Under 1441b, in fed. question cases, case may be removed despite residence of parties.
Diversity cases are limited to removal only if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. (most important qualification)
a. If P from Mass sues D from Conn in Conn, D may not remove
b. If P from Mass sues D from Conn on Conn over patent, D may remove
· Under 1441c, if a separate claim is joined with a non-removable claim, the entire case may be removed to dist. Ct. (Problem is cts. have required such a degree of separateness, probably couldn’t bring together.
