CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE – Margaret Johns, Fall 2016
STAGE
ISSUE
RULE
DESCRIPTION
RELATED CASES/RULES
GENERAL
FRCP Values
Rule 1
FRCP’s intent is to provide (1) just, (2) speedy, and (3) inexpensive determination of all cases.
Note tension between the three in all cases
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
(continued)
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
(continued)
Generally
If the court determines at any time that it lacks S/M Jx (anywhere btwn district court to SCOTUS), it must be dismissed (not waivable)
Even if D does not raise it
1. Original Federal Court jx?
A. Diversity?
i. Citizenship?
1. Individuals?
2. Corporations?
3. Partnerships?
ii. Complete diversity?
iii. Amount in controversy?
B. Federal question jx?
i. Essential federal element?
ii. Is the claim created by or brought pursuant to federal law?
iii. Federal interest?
iv. Necessary to a well-pleaded complaint?
2. Supplemental jx
3. Removal jx
28 USC §1331
The federal court shall have original S/M Jx of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the USA
Section 1331 can be satisfied in one of 2 ways: 1) the plaintiff asserts a federally created claim, or 2) the plaintiff asserts a state-created claim that includes an essential federal ingredient.
Federal Question Jx
Well-pleaded complaint: Rule 8(a)
See MOTTLEY (NOT ENOUGH): A federal question must arise from P’s statement of P’s cause of action (element of that CoA).
Rule: Federal question must arise as element of cause of action in P’s complaint (not just as an anticipated defense)
Mottley:
P negligently injured, D settles by giving P free rail transportation for life, then breaches
Interpretation of 28 USC § 1331
What does it mean to “arise under” federal law?
Merrell Dow (NOT ENOUGH): If the federal law is not needed to prevail on the merits of the case, it does not arise out federal law.
Grable (ENOUGH): Grable Rules:
If tying Fed Q Jx to state claim, the federal issue must be:
necessarily disputed;
actually disputed;
substantial to the interests of the government; and
capable of resolution in fed court without disrupting Congressional federal-state balance.
Gunn (NOT ENOUGH): Grable rules: “Substantial” means fed gov’t has a major interest in resolution. Must check every box in Grable to tie Fed Q Jx to state claim.
Merrell Dow: P sues under state claims, uses the FDCA to define an element of negligence (duty of reasonable care). Still a state negligence lawsuit – not federal.
Grable: IRS seizes P’s property and sells to D. P sues D to quiet title (state claim). Fed gov has interest
Gunn: P loses patent action, sues attorney for legal malpractice.
Diversity Jx
(determined at time action is filed)
Diversity Jx (continued)
28 USC § 1332
Federal court has original Jx of all civil actions where:
Sum of matter in controversy exceeds $75,000; and
One of the following:
Citizens of different states
Citizens of a state and foreign citizens or subjects
Citizens of different states and foreign citizens or subjects are additional parties
Strawbridge: Complete Diversity Rule: P cannot be a resident of the same state as any D.
Exceptions: interpleader, mass disaster, class action all only require minimum diversity
Citizenship
Citizenship for Individuals (Sheehan à)
Test is the same as domicile for diversity Jx
Presence in the state; and
Intent to stay there indefinitely/permanently
Intent determined through circumstantial evidence
Otherwise, impossible (who knows what “intent” really is)
Domicile is “sticky” (doesn’t change until new one obtained)
Citizenship for Corporations (Hertz Corp. à)
Test for principal place of business is “nerve center”
A corporation is a citizen of:
Every state where it is incorporated; and
The state of its
Act, then sought to add Ds AND add state law claims.
Supplemental Jx for Amount in Controversy
In a diversity case (needing diversity + over $75K in amount in controversy), as long as one P meets minimum amount in controversy, under § 1367, other Ps can join if:
They are otherwise diverse; and
Their claims all arise from the same nucleus of facts.
See Allapattah à
§ 1367(b) has numerous exceptions, but none include permissively joined plaintiffs.
Allapattah: Girl injures herself badly on a can of tuna, she and her family sues. Her injuries exceed amount but family injuries (emotional distress) do not.
Removal Jx
Removal Jx
28 USC § 1441
All Ds must agree to removal.
28 USC § 1441:
(a) Where federal court has original S/M Jx, D can remove case from state court to federal court.
(b) Forum Defendant Rule: In diversity cases, removal not allowed if any D (including third party Ds) at time of removal is a citizen of the state where the action is brought (in Federal Question cases, citizenship doesn’t matter, so ignore)
Example: P is CA citizen, D is WA citizen, state law claim exceeds $75K
P can file in federal court in WA
P can file in state court in WA
But, if P files in WA state court, D cannot remove to fed ct
As long as removal is proper at the time of removal, a citizen of the forum state added during litigation does not destroy Jx.
See Spencer à
If the courts have original S/M Jx and loses it (federal question extinguished, or D citizen added like in Spencer), courts have discretion in keeping the case (and usually will)
Contrast: If no original S/M Jx, the case must be dismissed.
Spencer:
S à AK citizen
A à AL company
P à CA company
S sues A in CA state court. A removes (original Jx based on diversity). Then S also sues P (finds out P may also be liable while conducting discovery) and tries to go back to CA state court to maintain diversity. Court says FUCK NO à Forum Defendant Rule biiitch. P is a CA company and won’t face bias in CA state court.
