Civil Procedure II
Professor John Lynch
Spring 2011
Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
Federal Question Cases: all civil actions arising under the Const., laws or Treaties of the US. (if federal law creates the COA implicitly or explicitly. )
· Osteoimplant v. Rathe:
o You cannot challenge a judgment in an alternative forum unless under four exceptions. Basically, if the judgment was from a federal court you have to challenge it there, unless
§ Lack of personal jurisdiction: insufficient connection between the person and the forum.
§ Extrinsic Fraud:
§ Lack of Subject matter jurisdiction:
§ Satisfaction: the debt had been paid.
o Art. IV SS 1 of the const. Full faith and credit clause. Stop people from getting a default judgment in one court and then shopping for a new forum.
o 28 USC 1331: federal district courts shall have personal jurisdiction arising under the const concerning laws of the US.
· Bell v. Hood: Jurisdiction needs to be asserted prior to looking into whether the complaint states a claim.
o Bell’s suit stems from violation of 4th and 5th amendment.
o Jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the claim might fail to state a COA.
§ Failure to state a claim is a judgment on the merits not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
§ COA is a question of law not jurisdiction, unless claim is contrived or frivoless.
· Louisville RR v. Mottley: Federal law issue must be part of a well pleaded complaint. It must part of the Ps prima facie claim and not enter the case through a defendants answer or as a Ps reply to a defense.
Amount in Controversy: 28 USC 1332
· Rule does not apply to federal question cases
· Party seeking fed juris Must show that his claim was made in good faith and that it is possible that the amount exceeds 75k. Not required to prove the actual value.
· Challenging party will only prevail if he shows with a “legal certainty” that the claim will be adjudicated for less
· One plaintiff may aggregate several claims against a single D to reach the statutory minimum
· One P may not aggregate several claims against several D
· Multiple Ps will qualify for fed juris when at least one Ps claim is valued at 75k
· Multiple Ps cannot aggregate their claims to meet 75k. At least one must be 75k.
o Exception: 2 or more Ps enforcing the same right or interest that they share or own.
· If the P does not recover the juris amount, the fed still has juris. However 1332(b) there is a penalty if you don’t recover the minimum you might not get costs.
· Snyder v. Harris: Separate and distinct claims under a class action suit may not be aggregated to meet diversity jurisdictional amounts. Action for overpayment to gas company. Ps wanted to aggregate their claims to meet the jurisdictional amount.
o Aggregation is permitted only (1) in cases in which a single P seeks to aggregate two or more of his own claims against a single D and (2) in cases in which two or more Ps unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest.
Diversity of Citizenship:
· 1332 Diversity of citizenship
o Exceeds sum of 75000
§ Citizens of different states( co plaintiffs and co defendants can be from the same states. )
· Strawbridge v. Curtis: (minimal diversity) provides for complete cross party diversity. All the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other side.
· Hertz v. Friend: (principal place of business) refers to the place where a corporations high level officers direct, control and coordinate the corporations activities.
o 1332(c)1 Nerve center: principal place of business is best read as referring to the place where a corps officers direct and coordinate.
· St. Paul v. Red Cab: Obtained a judgment below the minimum amount in controversy. Then an appeal, fed court refused to take the case bc below the minimum.
o The inability of the P to recover an amount adequate to give the court juris does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction.
o Must be apparent from the face of the pleadings, to a legal certainty, that the P cannot recover the amount claimed, or that the P was never entitled to recover for the case to be dismissed.
o Events occurring subsequent to the institution of the suit which reduce the recoverable amount do not oust jurisdiction.
· Horton v. Liberty Mutual: the amount in controversy is decided from the complaint itself, unless it appears or is shown that the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed in good faith. If you appeal, you are still working with the original amount in the complaint, not the recovered amount.
· Kramer v. Caribbean Mills: A Panama Co and a Haitian Co, The Panama assigned 95% interest in Kramer, a Texan, who had no other connection with the matter and who agreed to return the recovery to the assignor. The purpose was to create complete diversity for fed sub matter juris.
o When has a party been improperly or collusively joined to invoke jurisdiction of feder al court within 1359
o Where an assignee lacks previous connection with a suit and simultaneously reassigns most of interest back to the original owner, it is evident that such a party was improperly and collusively joined to manufacture federal jurisdiction.
· Rose v. Giamatti: (Removal Action)
o We don’t
ses outlined in 1367(b); possible FRCP loophole if read literally
o Court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction; similar to pendant jurisdiction reasons for declining 1367©
· Exxon v. Allapattah v. Starkist: Consolidation of two separate cases. Only one P brought a claim which met the statutory minimum amount.
o In order to exercise supplemental jurisdiction there must be a related claim in the case that falls within the federal district courts original jurisdiction. As long as there is complete diversity between all adverse parties, and as long as there is one state law claim that meets the statutory minimum amount the court can exercise supp juris over those state law claims between diverse parties that do not independently meet the minimum amount in controversy as long as it’s within the common nucleus of facts.
o Starkist: Overruled by Exxon, girl cut her finger. She and her family sued. The court found that only she had met the requisite amount and dismissed her case bc her families claim didn’t meet the amount.
· Revere v. Aetna: Revere sued Aetna, Aetna interpleaded Fuller. Fuller and revere are not diverse and Revere tries to get rid of Fuller. Fuller stays in. This is proper ancillary jurisdiction if the claim arises out of the same aggregate of operative facts as the original claim in tow senses
§ That the same aggregate of operative facts serves as the basis for both claims; or
§ That the aggregate core of facts upon which the original claim rests activates additional legal rights in a party that would otherwise remain dormant.
· Owen v. Kroger: Kroger got electrocuted when Owen’s crane touched Omaha’s power line. Kroger sued Omaha to get in federal court via diversity. Omaha impleaded Owen and won on summery judgment. This left Kroger and Owen who are not diverse in federal court. Kroger won, the SCOTUS overturned
o Kroger is not allowed to defeat diversity by suing only diverse parties and waiting for them to implead non diverse parties.
o The claim against Owen was entirely separate from original claim, so no pendant jurisdiction
§ In order to be pendent, the second claim has to be ancillary and dependent.
