Civil Procedure I Outline

Amy Wax – Civil Procedure – Fall 2012
 
CAN NEVER BE WAIVED. CAN BE CHALLENGED BY BOTH PARTIES CAPRON V. VAN NOORDEN
Article III SEC 2: 1) Cases arising under Constitution, Laws of US and Treaties; 2) Ambassadors, public Ministers and Consuls; 3) Admiralty; 4) US a Party; 5) Between Two or More States; 6) State and Citizens of another State; 7) Citizens of different States; 8) Citizens of same state claiming Lands under Grants of different States; AND 9) State or Citizens of Foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
I.       Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction in General
a.       Enacted under 1331 (Judiciary act of 1789) limited amount of power granted under Article III
b.      П has duty to assert Subject Matter Jurisdiction under rule 8.a.1
                                                              i.      Well-pleaded complaint; cannot assert jurisdiction under federal law on an anticipatory defense.  Cannot assert federal claim which is related to a defense in pleading. Louisville v Mottley; floodgates problem
c.       Rationale: Federal Courts experts in federal law
d.      3 themes of Federal Jurisdiction
                                                              i.      Federal Law Provides Cause of Action [Article III + 1331] 1.      Keep in mind that this is a slam dunk; no state cause of action involved
                                                            ii.      Meaning and Application [To decide case must apply federal law; Article III Yes + 1331 sometimes] 1.      Meaning and Application arises when state law provides cause of action and requires court to consider federal law to resolve state action T.B. Harms
2.      Case arises “but for” statute, but does involve construction of federal law.  State cause of action provides action and must require court to consider federal law.  If only construing contract and not copyright law, then no “arising under” 1331. TB Harms v Eliscu
3.      Many cases valid under article III, but outside scope of 1331
                                                          iii.      Ingredient but for [Article III Yes, but no under 1331] 1.      It is an ingredient but for construction because no original federal ingredient
2.      2- part test: 1) Constitutionally grounded; 2) which statute takes up power of constitution
3.      Special statue required for “but for” test Osborne v Bank of US; otherwise flood gate… “but for” federal highway
II.    Conflicting Meaning and Application Test
a.       Smith v Kansas: state cause of action that were not lawful under federal statute; substantial federal issue that requires application or construction of federal law
b.      C.F. Moore v. Chesapeake: a state law tort claim required the construction of federal act; not granted under 1331 meaning and application test
III. Resolving Meaning and Application Test Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Thompson
a.       Case where diversity jurisdiction restricted by removal statutes; 2 foreign Пs and ∆ from Ohio in Ohio court
b.      6th circuit reversed with the necessarily depend theory; if not necessary to construe law, then not in court; rejected by SC
c.       Rules private cause of action must be considered with meaning and application test
                                                              i.      Hinging on the notion of substantiality; created this interpretation
                                                            ii.      Bright line rule: embedded cause of action necessary and sufficient in a state law cause of action [modified by Grable] d.      Promotes the protection of federal rights (courts of limited jurisdiction); embedded question does not support purpose of federal jurisdiction question
e.       Partly protects uniformity and expertise because will limit the number of cases in federal court and the application of federal law by federal courts
IV. Meaning and Application + Implied Private Right of Action Cort v. Ash
a.       Private remedy is implicit in statue not expressly providing one:
                                                              i.      1) is the П “one of the class whose special benefit the statue was enacted
                                                            ii.      2) is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one; [overall purpose vindicated by private right of action]                                                           iii.      3) is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the П [powerful component…two hands at the wheel]                                                           iv.      4) is the cause of action traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States so that it would be in appropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law? [traditional state law area] V.    Meaning and Application + 4th Amendment Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
a.       Majority reads in a cause of action under 4th amendment; damages may be obtained for injuries for violating 4th amendment; damages historical remedy for invasion of personal interests of liberty
b.      DISSENT (Justice Black): congress created express cause of action and if wanted a federal cause of action they would have created it; floodgate fears
VI. Meaning and Application Sufficient, but not Necessary Grable v. Sons v. Darue Engineering
a.       Cause of action arising under state law (quite title claim…no consideration of whether independent right to sue for damages under 6335 (a))
b.      Returns to Smith substantiality question
                                                              i.      1) Federal Interest (Rules for notice critical to tax scheme)
                                                            ii.      2) Floodgate problem (MD opens up floodgate; tiny #)
                                                          iii.      3) Is federal question central to case at issue
 
VII.                      Diversity Jurisdiction
75K + 1) CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES; 2) CITIZENS OF A STATE AND CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN STATE; 3) CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES AND IN WHICH CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF A FOREIGN STATE ARE ADDITONAL PARTIES; 4) FOREIGN STATE AS PLAINTIFF AND CITIZENS OF STATE OR OF DIFFERENT STATES
a.       Purpose of Diversity: 1) protect against state prejudice; 2) Likely П fails in his state; 3) In conjunction with PJ forces П to bring suit in state of П
                                                              i.      Remember same state across V doesn’t protect when brought to a general jurisdiction court of an another state
                                                            ii.      Foreign states have sovereign immunity
                                                          iii.      Alien v Alien is not a controversy
b.      Complete Diversity + Minimum Amount Requirement [not full power under Article III] c.       Corporations: citizen of every state incorporate and primary place of business [1332 C1] requiring a totality of the circumstances test
d.      Individual: last place found and intend to remain Mas v. Perry; 1332 C 2: legal representative of decedent deemed citizen of state of defendant
                                                              i.      Test: true fixed and permanent home is place intention of returning to; domicile changed by a) taking up new residence in different domicile and b) intention to remain there
                                                            ii.      An alien is domiciled in country of citizenship for 1332 Mas v. Perry
                                                          iii.      Unity of domicile rule suspended under 1332 to preserve spirit what its letter intended.  Common law action when rule has absurd result. Mas v. Perry
1.      Unity of Domicile: wife takes the domicile of her husband
e.       Alien: Alien admitted to US for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which alien domiciled (Post- Mass v. Perry)
f.       Class actions 1332 D: >$5M and any member different from П; any foreign citizen or state and any state citizen; citizen of a state and foreign state or citizen
                                                              i.      Exceptions:
1.      2/3 of citizens of state where action filed
2.      At least 1 defendant: a) significant relief is member of П class; b) alleged conduct forms significant basis for claims; c) who a citizen of State in which action filed; AND
3.      Principal injuries resulting from alleged conduct of each ∆ were incurred in State in which action was originally filed
g.      Aggregation rule: could add up claims against party related or unrelated (any claim under 18)
                                                              i.      Can add federal + diversity claim
                                                            ii.      EXCEPTION: husband and wives can aggregate claims
                                                          iii.      Remember counts are different theories; do not aggregate those numbers
 
Closed questions: Federal law and express right of action is in federal court.  State cause of action with embedded federal question needs an implied private right of action or Grable.  Trying to take federal rules and say they “arise under” constitution.  Private cause of action under 4th amendment.  But for test must have express statutory provision.
 
Open questions: how to construe citizenship; where does a person “intend to remain”; is the principal place of business of a corporation where the executives reside; manufacture goods; judging whether a type of action if allowed in federal court would “open the floodgates”; how to conclude there is a “central federal question” under Grable; SC has original jurisdiction over foreign states and ambassadors…does this effect analysis in anyway?
 
 
Supplemental Jurisdiction
§1367: in any civil action which the strict courts have original jurisdictions, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action…form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the US Constitution