Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Iowa School of Law
Bauer, Patrick B.

CIVIL PROCEDURE

I. Introduction
A. Overview of Trial and Appellate Proceeding in Civil Actions – arc of the lawsuit
1. Jurisdiction/Venue
a. Need subject-matter & personal jurisdiction
b. Need to determine state or federal system
c. Need venue (which actual court in the system)
2. Pleading and Joined
a. π files complaint
b. Δ responds
1. Demurrer – no cause of action (attack legal sufficiency)
2. Denial – I didn’t do it
3. Discovery
4. Summary Judgment – other side has not met burden of proof
5. Trial
6. Judgment
7. Appeal(s) – usually have the right to one appeal
8. Preclusion principles – res judicada, final judgment
B. Overview of State and Federal Court Systems
1. State (Iowa)
a. Small claims courts – inferior jurisdiction; can appeal to DC
b. District courts – state trial courts
1. General and original jurisdiction in 3 areas: law, equity, and criminal
2. π must declare if they are in law or equity up front
c. Appellate court – one in Iowa, 9 judges (sit in panels of 3)
1. Odd appellate procedure: appeal from DC to SC, then it gets sent back to AC
2. Standard of review
(a) In law
(i) For findings of law – de novo
(ii) For findings of fact by jury – very deferential
(iii)For findings of fact by judge – very deferential (like jury)
(b) In equity – de novo
d. Supreme court – appellate jurisdiction, 7 judges
2. Federal – limited jurisdiction
a. District courts – original and limited jurisdiction, one per district (94 districts)
b. Appellate courts – circuits, one appeal as a matter of right
1. Standard of review
(a) In law
(i) For findings of fact by jury – defer unless jury was crazy
(ii) For findings of fact by judge – clearly erroneous
(iii)For findings of law – de novo
(b) In equity – clearly erroenous
c. Supreme court – 9 judges, right b/c they’re last, take ~.1% of appeals
1. Criteria to accept case:
(a) “Important” – flag burning, pledge of allegiance, etc.
(b) Circuit split – ½ circuits say one thing, other ½ the opposite – USSC has waited for the issue to “percolate” through the circuits

II. Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A. Initial Overview
1. Rules/Statutes
a. FRCP
1. 8 – General rules for pleading
(a) Short and plain statement of grounds for jurisdiction
(b) Short and plain statement of the claim
(c) Demand for judgment and relief
2. 12(h)(3) – subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time (unlike most things)
3. 82 – FRCP not allowed to change the scope of federal jurisdiction
b. 28 USC §§
1. 1251 – Original jurisdiction of supreme court
(a) Original and exclusive – controversies b/w 2+ states
(b) Original (not exclusive) – US v. state, State v. citizens of other state
2. 1254 – Cert to USSC from courts of appeal (discretionary)
3. 1257 – Cert to USSC for state supreme courts (discretionary)
4. 1291 – Final judgment rule (appellate court can only hear after final DC judgment)
5. 1292 – Interlocutory orders (appellate court can hear some; mainly injunctions, but also if the DC thinks it is needed and the COA agrees)
6. 1331 – Federal question jurisdiction (“arising under”)
7. 1332 – Diversity jurisdiction (complete diversity plus >$75K in controversy)
8. 1333 – Exclusive federal admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
B. Federal Question Jurisdiction
1. Rules
a. To get federal question jurisdiction
1. The plaintiff’s claim must “arise under”
2. You do not qualify if the defendant’s defense is based on federal law (see Mottley)
b. Important to remember:
1. The district court’s statutory “arising under” jurisdiction is narrower than the Constitutional Article III “arising under”
(a) So the USSC can hear stuff the regular federal courts cannot
c. Challenging federal subject matter jurisdiction
1. Δ can ask to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim
2. Bell v. Hood – USSC rule: if there is any basis for a federal claim, the dismissal should be for failure to state a claim (not lack of jurisdiction). Result – asked and answered; π cannot re-file in state court
d. Subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by anyone (including the judge)
1. Even in an appeal (see Capron v. Van Noorden)
2. It is not a “raise it or waive it” defense
e. Collateral attack (in 2nd lawsuit) of federal subject matter jurisdiction
1. Δ never showed up for the 1st suit (defaulted) – can challenge it in the 2nd lawsuit
2. Δ showed up, challenged jurisdiction, and lost – cannot challenge (asked & answered)
3. Δ showed up but forgot to raise it – cannot challenge it (waived) (generally)
2. Rules/Statutes
a. FRCP –
1. 12
(a) 2(b)(1) – dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
(b) 12(b)(6) – dismissal for failure to state a claim
(c) 12(h)(3) – subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by anyone
b. 28 USC §§
1. 1331 – Federal question jurisdiction – case must “arise under the laws of the United States” (laws of US = US Constitution, federal statutes, and federal common law)
3. Cases
a. Mottley – a suit “arises under” the laws of the US only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own original cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws
b. Capron v. Van Noorden – π filed suit in federal court and lost; on appeal he challenged subject matter jurisdiction; appellate court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
C. Diversity Jurisdiction
1. Rules
a. Complete diversity is required (Strawbridge v. Curtis)
1. Note – this is stricter than the Constitutional Article III minimal diversity requirement
2. Citizenship of estate is determined by the citizenship of the deceased
(a) Same for guardians
3. Individual citizenship is determined by domicile
(a) Domicile = physical presence plus an intention to remain
(b) If you are domiciled abroad, you have no state citizenship (so cannot get into federal court)
(c) Permanent resident aliens are “citizens” of the state where they live
(d) Citizenship determined on the date the action is filed
(e) No federal jurisdiction for suits between 2 non-citizens (have to go to state)
4. Corporations have dual citizenship
(a) State where they are incorporated
(b) State where they have their primary place of

ke Gibbs, see below)
(b) 1367(b) – substantial qualification – if DC jurisdiction is based solely on §1332, the DC shall not have SJ over:
(i) claims by plaintiffs against people joined as parties under Rules 14/19/20/24
(ii) people [proposed to be] joined as πs under Rule 19
(iii)people intervening under Rule 24
(i) Basic translation: If 1332 says no, this rule says no
(c) 1367(c) – even though it falls in (a) and is not excluded in (b), the DCs may decline to hear claims if it’s a novel/complex question of state law, the state claim is predominant, the DC has dismissed the federal claims, or there are other compelling reasons
5. Cases
a. Gibbs – if there is a common nucleus of fact between the federal and state claims, the court may exercise pendant jurisdiction over the state claim
b. Jin – πs have a §1331 federal question anchor claim (RICO/civil rights) and a state tort claim (defamation). Federal court exercises supplemental jurisdiction, then applies DC statute of limitations to the state tort claim and finds it time-barred. (πs got screwed)
E. Amount in Controversy
1. Basics
a. 1331 does not have a minimum amount in controversy requirement
1. It was removed in 1980 because it was barring too many civil rights claims
b. 1331 requires more than $75,000 (i.e. $75,000.01) in controversy
c. Have to read 13679(b) very carefully
2. Rules
a. Amount in controversy is determined at time of filing by the π’s claim (unless their asking amount is truly insane)
b. Can win more than you asked for if it’s litigated; can only get what you asked for if the defendant defaults
c. “Value” of injunctions is determined by any of 4 ways
1. Value of injunction to π
2. Cost of compliance to Δ
3. Cost/value to the party invoking federal jurisdiction
4. Whichever gives of the biggest amount
d. How to meet amount in controversy
1. “Old rule” – A party may aggregate claims to satisfy the amount in controversy; parties may not
2. “New” rule after Allapattah
(a) Parties may satisfy the amount in controversy requirement even if only some, but not all, the parties in a diversity action allege a sufficient amount in controversy so long as there is a common nucleus of fact (same case or controversy)
(b) Example – Joe and I get hurt at an Exxon station. Joe sues Exxon in federal court for $80K. I can join as a π against Exxon even though I only want $50K.
(c) Applies to plaintiffs permissively joined under 20 or certified as class action members under 23