Civil Procedure Outline
Professor Levine
Spring 2008
JURISDICTION GENERALLY
I. In order for a federal court to hear a case, the court must have jurisdiction.
II. Questions that ALL must be answered affirmatively:
(1) Is there subject-matter jx (either diversity or federal question)?
(2) Is there personal jx over each Δ (either in personam or in rem)?
(3) Was each Δ served adequately? [FRCP 4(k)(1)(A)]
· Served within the state where the court sits
· Served out of state in accordance with the state’s long-arm statute
(4) Does the district where the case is pending satisfy the venue requirement? [§1391]
(5) Did Δ receive notice and an opportunity to be heard?
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
I. The Ultimate Defense
A. A court may raise a SMJ motion [FRCP 12(h)(3)] (See Mottley)
B. Can be raised at any time, cannot be waived (See Mas v. Perry)
C. Most Favored Defense [FRCP 12(b)(1) motion, FRCP 12(h)(3) defense]
II. Policy Considerations
A. Grant of power from Article III, Section 2
1. Congress can grant less (not more) than what is listed/mentioned in Art. III, Sect. 2
(a) §1331 and §1332 represent what Congress has authorized
2. FRCP 8(a)(1) – you must plead jurisdiction, right upfront
B. Why would one prefer federal court over state court?
1. Location (metropolitan v. rural)
2. Broader discover
3. Speedier trial
4. Single judge
5. Broader jury
6. Once we are legitimately in federal court, it trumps trying to getting into state court (but can usually do the reverse, state to federal)
7. Other circumstances
8. Usually it’s an option, can you go to federal court?
9. Concerned about prejudice
10. Kind of an odd prejudice – state prejudice, but really its region prejudice
11. Note: Judges hate this, bc they end up with these pithy cases about trivial matters that involve diversity jurisdiction
C. State Ct
1. Easy, just need on citizen of the state
III. Diversity Jurisdiction
A. Elements: generally, to obtain diversity jurisdiction, π must show:
1. Diversity of Citizenship
2. Claim exceed the Amount in Controversy limit
* Diversity must be established when complaint is filed
* For statutory diversity jx
B. Constitutional Authority
1. Article III, section 2 states that the federal judicial power extends to controversies between two or more states, between a state an a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, or between a state (or its citizens) and foreign states (or their citizens).
2. “Minimal Diversity”
(a) There must be diversity between at least two or more adverse claimants.
(b) Diversity of citizenship between the parties
(c) Used in statutory interpleader cases (See State Farm)
3. Foreigners: Diversity does not exist between aliens.
C. Statutory Authority
1. 28 U.S.C. §1332 = Complete Diversity + Minimum Amount in Controversy
2. “Complete Diversity”
(a) No Δ may have the same citizenship as any π (No adverse parties can be co-citizens, but there may be co-citizens on either side)
(b) Mas v. Perry: Case of landlord looking through two-way mirrors. Parties are Jean-Pierre Mas (France), Perry (Louisiana) and Judy Mas, whose citizenship is in question because under complete diversity, no party on one side can have the same citizenship of the party of the other side. Even though she doesn’t know where she is going to live her current domicile is Mississippi because that is where she returns to. Raised this issue after final judgment (this is ok according to Rule 11) – To protect the states. State citizenship comes from birth where you keep this until you acquire another. Intent is not enough – you must get to the new place with the intent to stay forever, you can’t do it with papers though. Judy hasn’t done enough to establish LA citizenship, not enough requisite intent.
(1) Factual inquiry – her citizenship is MS.
i Citizenship is measured at the moment the complaint is filed
ii Citizenship + Domicile
(2) Married, at the time of this case, courts took the citizenship of the husband (BUT HERE, this doesn’t apply because Jean-Pierre is French and she can’t be said to be French)
3. “Amount in Controversy” Requirement ($75,000)
(a) Damage claim must be in good faith.
(b) Must worry about the amount in controversy (only a creature of statute)
(1) Cts ratchet up the amount (now $7500) so that really pithy cases stay out
(c) To get out of fed ct, a Δ can show that a particular cause of action has a cap on damages, or the K has a cap, etc.
(d) §1332 (b): Allege $75K and win $50, judge can penalize π
(e) Number of Parties
(1) Single: Must meet the $75K minimum amount in controversy
(2) Multiple: At least one π must have more than $75K in controversy. (Exception: Class Actions, see part (E))
D. Determining Citizenship
1. Natural Persons:
(a) Citizenship has the same meaning as domicile, that is
(1) Residence in a state (or physical presence if moving to a new place), and
(2) The intent to remain there.
* Determines at time that complaint is filed
* Examples:
See World Wide VW: π is still domiciled in NY, even though π intended to move to AZ. π was not there yet)
See Mas v. Perry: Wife did not intend to remain in LA, so for diversity purposes she was still a citizen of MS.
(b) Permanent Resident Aliens: Considered citizens of the states in which they are domiciled.
2. Corporations: [§1332(c)]
(a) Ownership status of the corporation (publicly owned corporation are difficult because tons of owners)
(b) Place of incorporation, where they took out corporation papers (corps are usually a creature of state law)
(1) Best place to incorporate? DE, the laws most favorable to management.
(c) Principle place of business (sometimes difficult to determine, most cts use a “total activity” test looking to where the bulk of activity takes place)
3. Partnerships and Joint Ventures
(a) Citizenship of both members
4. Unincorporated associations/Unions
(a) Citizenship of each state in which any member is a c
cy and alleged to cause birth defects. They sue in Ohio state court bc Merrell Dow’s PPB is in Ohio. Δs want to remove to federal court (note that even though there is diversity of citizenship, if you have sued one Δ in their home state, then the suit is not removable on the basis of diversity of citizenship). Δ-Merrell Dow wants to remove on the basis that Count IV of the complaint alleges that the drug Bendectin was “misbranded” in violation of the FDCA (to show negligence per se) and thus, “arises under” federal law. Goal of Merrell Dow is that it is easier to get this case booted from federal court than state court; easier to convince fed court that the case should be heard in Scotland/Canada. Basically, the π’s lawyers got a little too broad with stating their causes of action and πs argue that Count IV does not “arise under” even though they pleaded a statute of the U.S. No private right of action found and therefore, no federal jx.
2. Rule: If πs plead a federal statute that creates a private right of action, then the case can be removed to federal court under federal question jx.
3. Tests for Removal and Federal Q Jx:
(a) American Well Works has the “creates” test, where if the federal law creates the cause of action, then can go to the federal court. The question should be: Are you invoking federal law as the source of your protection? Then, federal courts have jx. (We do not have that here)
(b) Litigation provoking problem in Smith, Lincoln Mills, asks if there is a “substantial federal issue.” If a substantial element of your cause of action is federal law, then the federal courts have jx here.
(1) Substantial means: the federal issue must be met to sustain the cause of action. (See footnote 5: the federal claim must not be “colorable,” but rest on a reasonable foundation. Also, Levine’s hypo of outerwear and lining)
4. Private Right of Action and Federal Q Jx:
(a) Private Right of Action Defined: A citizen has the right to sue for a violation of a federal statute if there is:
(1) Express Private Right of Action: legislature explicitly granted the right to sue
(2) Implied Private Right of Action: not explicitly granted or denied, must meet the following requirements:
i πs are part of the class of people intended to be protected
ii Legislative intent to grant a private right of action
iii Would further the purpose of the statute
Not traditionally a state law claim
