Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Illinois School of Law
Stancil, Paul J.



Federal SMJ

28 USC 1331—federal question, ‘arising under’ Constitution/statute
28 USC 1332—diversity + amount in controversy $75,000+

How to Challenge SMJ

12(b)(1)—dismiss for lack of SMJ
12(b)(6)—dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

i. Generally dismissed w/ prejudice
ii. If claim does not ‘arise under’ federal jurisdiction—SC said courts should dismiss on this
Federal Question—1331
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley—RR free passes; actually a contract issue

Well-pleaded complaint rule—federal issue must appear on the face of a complaint, cannot arise strictly from D’s anticipated defense

Prevents Ps from bringing up counter defenses unnecessarily

Smith v. Kansas—state law says banks cannot invest in illegal securities; alleged illegal security was issued under federal law that P claimed was unconstitutional

Securities were illegal because law itself was unconstitional
Different from Mottley because this necessarily involves a federal law issue

Diversity Jurisdiction

28 USC 1332—requires complete diversity

All D’s must be diverse from all Ps
Amount in controversy must be MORE than $75,000

Hawkins v. Masters Farms Inc

Establish sufficient ties to show you are a citizen; intent to remain in that state etc

Redner v. Sanders—P claims diversity jurisdiction by saying he is a resident of France

Difference between ‘citizen’ and ‘resident’—must be a citizen (1332)
Also claimed citizen of California—no evidence to show where he lived, what he did there or in France
NO SMJ because P could not show diversity

Strawbridge v. Curtiss—each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant
Ankenbrandt—suits for divorce/alimony/child custody are outside the scope of DJ, even when they are citizens of different states
Saadeh v. Farouki—D borrowed funds from P and defaulted; at the time of filing D, a foreign citizen, was residing in MD; while litigation was underway D became a U.S. citizen

1988 amendment to 1332—an alien admitted to US for permanent residence is deemed a citizen of the state where he is domiciled

This was intended to limit, not expand DJ
Eliminates federal SMJ between a citizen and a resident alien

Supplemental Jurisdiction—all other claims so related to claims in the original action
§ 1367—to exercise, must have:

Original jurisdiction
Part of same case or controversy

Cannot supplement against persons made parties under R. 14, 19, 20, 24

May decline when:

novel/complex issue of state law
supplemental claim substantially predominates
has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction
exceptional circumstances

Jin v. Ministry of State Security—P alleges defamation claim and tries to join w/ RICO claim

It shares a common nucleus of operative facts w/ RICo
Diversity exists
However, lose due to statute of limitations!

Aggregation of Claims

single P w/ two or more unrelated claims against a single D may aggregate
if 2 Ps have claims against a single D they may NOT aggregate if their claims are regarded as separate and distinct
if one P has a claim in excess of amount and second P has one for less
multiple Ps or multiple Ds w/ a common undivided interest


Can remove to federal when fed and state overlap; allows D to second guess P

Caterpillar, Inc v. Lewis—is absence of complete diversity at time of removal fatal to federal adjudication?

Judgment must be vacated only if jurisdictional defect remains
Although it was not ripe for removal at the time, it had been cured at the time of judgment

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group—at the time of filing D was NOT diverse, but changed

Considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy do not warrant the exception to the longstanding rule that jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing.
Difference—Caterpillar was as a result of settlement; this was choice


Power of the court to exercise jurisdiction over D

In rem—right to seize property of an out of stater; issue is about the land
Quasi in rem—issue is not about the land, but ownership is used to establish PJ
In personam—authority over the person; needed to get $$ judgments

Pennoyer v. Neff—Neff (out of state) owed Pennoyer $$ and Pennoyer got sheriff’s deed to Neff’s property. Land was not properly attached before trial, so no constructive notice was served

Collateral attack—attacking an initial judgment with a second suit
Creation of quasi in rem jurisdiction
Allowed to ‘attach’ property (post notice of suit) to an out of state D

Even when land was not at issue

International Shoe Co v. Washington—shoe company based in different state; served an employee in the forum state

Must have sufficient minimum contacts

Contacts were continued and systematic

Must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

McGee v. I

papers in CA

Minimum contacts are not necessary if person is physically present
Physical presence is still sufficient for service of process

Gibbons v. Brown—three parties involved in car accident in Canada; Gibbons (TX resident) had sued Mr. Brown in FL two years earlier pursuant to car accident; Mrs. Brown now wants to sue Gibbons in FL based on the fact that she was engaged in a prior lawsuit in FL

Gibbons is not currently involved in any litigation; significant length of time between lawsuits

Consent to Jurisdiction
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc v. Shute—couple purchased tickets on P’s cruise, back of tickets contained consent to jurisdiction in FL for any/all claims arising from its use; couple sued for injuries

Forum selection clause is valid; has a strong interest in limiting number of possible forum it may have to defend itself
Dispels forum confusion ex ante
Saves customers $$

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co—common trust fund requires judicial accounting; ran an ad in a newspaper to notify persons affected of the judicial accounting; mailed notices eventually

Known beneficiaries—publication is not sufficient

Not reasonably calculated to notify affected parties
Must notify via mail; personal service not necessary because of high number of beneficiaries…interest balancing!

Unknown beneficiaries—publication is sufficient

Service of Process—Rule 4

Waiver of service—mail the complaint to D, signs it and sends it back (cheap!)

Must be returned in 30 or 60 days if outside any U.S. judicial district

If you waive service you get 60 days to respond to complaint, 4(d)

Summons—physically delivered to D (more expensive)

If one refuses to waive service without good cause he must pay for this and attorney’s fees in having to perform personal service 4(c)(2)
Only get 20 days to reply to complaint, 12(a)(1)


Difference between jurisdiction and venue—can be in same jurisdiction, different venue