Civil Procedure – Cooper, Summer 2014
Jurisdiction
(1) Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
-Fall within Article III powers? (Federal-Question, Diversity, Alienage, etc.)
Federal-Question, §1331.
Purpose: uniformity, judicial expertise in interpreting federal law, protect against possible state-court hostility to claims arising under federal law.
· For federal-question jurisdiction, π’s cause of action must arise under the constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.
· Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (ensures balance of power between state and federal power).
· Anticipated federal defenses DO NOT grant federal-question jurisdiction (we do not grant jurisdiction on prospect that there will be a federal defense).
· Determine whether the action arises solely on the basis of what would be in a well-pleaded complaint. (Defenses are not included in well-pleaded complaints.) (Motley)
· No jurisdictional amount required for f-q juris.
· Certain federal claims (patent, copyright) MUST go to federal court (exclusive jurisdiction).
· Other kinds of f-q question, certain FELA or Civil Rights cases can go to state or federal court, concurrent federal question jurisdiction.
· In issues of declaratory judgment, federal-question jurisdiction will be found only if the coercive action that would have been brought were declaratory relief not available is within that jurisdiction.
· Person who would be a ∆ under federal law can come to court for a declaratory judgment as a π in federal court, in order to resolve the dispute.
· The substantiality doctrine requires a federal court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction whenever the federal claim that is asserted as the basis for jurisdiction is utterly frivolous or without merit.
· Corollary to well-pleaded complaint rule says that “a plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead the necessary federal questions.”
· Jurisdiction question can be raised at any time, even on appeal and by party that brought it to that court.
(a) If court recognizes a lack of jurisdiction, must remove case.
Diversity Jurisdiction, §1332.
· Fear of bias and prejudice moved to provide a neutral forum.
1) There must be complete diversity of citizenship. No π can be on same side of the “v.” as any ∆. (Strawbridge v. Curtiss)
2) Determine diversity of citizenship on the day of the institution of the action.
3) An individuals citizenship or domicile is the domicile of birth, continued through life, and presumed to continue through life UNLESS: a) the individual physically changes his or her state and b) does that with intention of remaining in that state for the rest of his or her life (Mas v. Perry).
-Where is x’s citizenship determined by that person’s center of gravity? (Car’s licensed, taxes paid, family, work, residence, etc.)
4) Corporations have two citizenships: state in which it is incorporated AND state in which it has its principal place of business (split of authorities: nerve center test (where it makes its executive decisions) or plurality test (where it does a plurality of its manufacturing or service-providing).
5) Unincorporated association’s citizenship is determined by citizenship of all the members.
6) Parties in representative actions. Diversity based on citizenship of representative, not represented. In cases involving children, incompetents, estates, statute requires determination based on citizenship of represented.
-Amount in controversy requirement is that matter in controversy must be more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and cost.
-If one π and one ∆, you can aggregate the amounts of multiple claims, but NOT in multi-party situation unless claims are joint-claims, undivided interest claims.
-Court must accept π’s amount unless it can conclude to a legal certainty that π cannot recover that amount.
Supplemental Jurisdiction, §1367.
-Arising out of same Transaction/Occurrence or series
Purpose: 1) ensures that litigants aren’t dissuaded from bringing case to federal court because they could dispose of whole case in state court but not in fed.; 2) pendent jurisdiction serves the interest of avoiding piece-meal litigation, thus promoting judicial economy and greater expedition for the litigants.
-Pendent jurisdiction. You can append a jurisdictionally insufficient claim to a jurisdictionally sufficient claim and allow into one action if they come in a common nucleus of operative fact (United Mine Workers v. Gibbs).
-Ancillary Jurisdiction. Allow parties to assert jurisdictionally insufficient compulsory counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims because all emanate from same issue.
-Sup. Ct. started to curtail pendent and ancillary jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction only usable by ∆s.
-Sup. Ct. will not allow pendent party jurisdiction, starts to violate complete divers.
-Congress enacted §1367, supplemental jurisdiction, (a) codifies Gibbs case, case and controversy includes everything operating within a common nucleus of operative facts.
-§1367(b) prohibits use of supplemental jurisdiction when the case is based solely on diversity jurisdiction and the jurisdictionally insufficient claim is one by a plaintiff under FRCP 14 (third party claims), 19 and 20 (permissive and compulsory joinder), 24 (intervention).
-§1367(c) is discretionary. A court does not have to take supplemental jurisdiction. Some cases where shouldn’t take supplemental jurisdiction, ex, over cases that are complex state law, or where case is primarily state-based, more than incidental federal question, or where federal question has been dismissed or settled.
Notice. The server must employ such means as would be reasonably used by a person who really wants to accomplish the delivery of information. Physical service of process is preferable to mail, or former techniques of attachment to property or publication (Rule 4).
(6) Removal, §1441
· §1441(c) enables removing ∆ to remove not only federal question, but also the otherwise unremovable state matter.
· (7) Waiver
· -When are any of these issues waived?
· Subject-matter jurisdiction is never waived Louisville and National RR Co. v. Motley.
· Personal Jurisdiction, Notice, Service of process, and venue are waivable.
· These four matters must be raised by a pre-answer motion, or asserted in the answer, or they are forfeited (12(h)(1)).
· Personal jurisdiction defenses are threshold defenses, they must be asserted by pre-answer motion, or in an answer, the ∆ cannot raise the issue at trial because the ∆ has waived it.
· Consolidation of defenses. (12(g-h), threshold defenses must be made by pre-answer motion or answer, but can only make one pre-answer motion; anything you do not put in one motion, cannot put in a second motion. If omitted a threshold defense, you cannot even put it in your answer.
Joinder
13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 42
Rule 13: Counterclaim and Crossclaim
Rule 14: Third-Party Practice (Impleader)
Rule 18: Joinder of Claims (any that it has)
Rule 19: Required Joinder of Parties (Necsary ptys)
Rule 20: Permissive Joinder of Parties (T/O + CQ)
Rule 42: (a) Consolidation; (b) Separate Trials
· Joinder may promote efficiency and is sometimes necessary for fairness.
Assertion of Claims by a Single Plaintiff
· A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim may join as many claims as it has against the opposing party. 18(a)
· Have a liberal joinder of claims rule, but safeguarded against by Rule 42 that allows severing of claims that will lead to confusion.
· Joinder of claims only limited by jurisdictional issues, even if joinder is permitted, the federal court must have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear all of the claims against the parties.
· Harris v. Avery (1869) Can join claims that arise out of the same transaction.
· To join state and federal claims in same action, they must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact (United Mine Workers v. Gibbs). But, if π’s claims are such that they would ordinarily be tried all in one proceeding, federal courts can hear the whole.
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
· Purpose:
1. Relieves parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits
2. Conserves judicial resources
3. Prevents inconsistent decisions
4. Encourages reliance on adjudication
· “Public policy dictates that there be an end to litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties.” (Federated Dept. Stores v. Moitie).
· “Res Judicata” includes claim preclusion and issue preclusion
o Claim preclusion (claims that should have been brought in the first action, but are now waived because they weren’t) requires that a valid final adjudication of a claim precludes a second action on that claim or any part of it
o Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel) (issues decided in the first trial, upon which there is a final judgment) requires that an issue of fact or law, actually litigated and resolved by a valid final judgment that binds the parties in a subsequent action, whether on the same or a different claim.
Claim and Defense Preclusion
· A claim (or cause of action) is “a group of facts limited to a single occurrence or transaction without particular reference to the resulting legal rights. It is the facts surrounding the occurrence which operate to make up the claim, not the legal theory upon which a plaintiff relies” (Matthews v. NY Racing Assoc.)
·
f counterclaim would meet the transactional relationship test, it is not compulsory if it would require the joinder of another party under Rule 19 who is not within the court’s jurisdiction.
· ∆ need not raise compulsory counterclaim if pending in another action, but may still.
· Failure to assert a counterclaim in federal court usually forfeits that claim. However, if the first action is in state court, a federal court hearing the later suit must look to the rendering state’s compulsory counterclaim standards to determine if the claim in federal court is barred.
· Permissive Counterclaim: “the court may dispose of all claims between the parties in one proceeding whether or not they arose in the ‘same transaction.’”
· Counterclaim must follow all the rules of, and be treated like, another claim for relief.
· Πs must respond to counterclaim or risk default.
· If ∆ wants to assert counterclaim but did not, can amend answer; if the Rule 16 scheduling order deadline for amending pleadings has passed, must 1) show good cause to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4), and 2) obtain leave to amend its answer under 15(a)(2).
· Courts are split on how to handle π’s counterclaiming against ∆’s counterclaims.
o Some allow but restrict it to situations where ∆’s initial counterclaims were permissive and π’s counterclaims in reply are compulsory.
o Other courts do not allow practice, instead hold that situation should be treated as an attempt by π to amend its complaint to assert additional claims.
· Cross-Claims
· Must be against coparty and only while coparties are still in the suit.
· Should be asserted in a pleading.
· Must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
· Once proper cross-claim is made, can join any Rule 18 claims even if they would not have met the transactional relatedness test on their own.
· Coparty may assert a cross-claim for indemnity or contribution
· However, remains viable even if coparty asserting it obtains a dismissal of claims against it.
· Coparties are codefendants, coplaintiffs, co-third-party-defendants
· Courts split on whether the term extends to parties who are “on the same side of the v.” but who are not at the same party level
o Narrow view would say different levels are not coparties, but a broader view sensibly expands the definition of the term coparty to permit the application of Rule 13(g) in order to promote the efficient joinder of transactionally-related claims between parties who appear to fall within the definitional cracks of the joinder rules.
· If no cross-claim between joint tortfeasors, three alternatives:
1. No issue preclusion between them unless there is a cross-claim made
2. Even if no claim made between them, if they actually litigated as adversaries, then there is issue preclusion between them
3. Co-defendant ought to be able to invoke preclusion against other co-defendant
o Question whether it is a common issue.
· Rule 13 does not confer jurisdiction, but § 1367 does allow that most compulsory counterclaims are going to have supplemental jurisdiction because both governed by the same transaction/occurrence standard
· **For permissive counterclaims where claim does not independently qualify for s-j jurisdiction, courts are split on whether or not the counterclaim should be allowed. Generally, if counterclaim does not arise out of same transaction as π’s claim (such that it is permissive only), then it also will not be part of the “same case or controversy” for purposes of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a). Several courts, however, recently have interpreted “same case or controversy” under Article III to be broader than the “same transaction” under Rule 13(a), such that supplemental jurisdiction can extend to many permissive counterclaims.
