CIVIL PROCEDURE: Sohoni 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Diversity Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………………..………………..………………..………….……… Pg. 2
i. Domicile Test
ii. Amount in Controversy Requirement
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction..……………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………….…………. Pg. 5
In Personam Jurisdiction (Personal Jurisdiction)
i. Specific Jurisdiction
ii. General Jurisdiction
** The Long Arm Statute and Personal Jurisdiction
In Rem & Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction
Litigating Objections to the Court’s Jurisdiction……………………………………………………..……………………………………..……………… Pg. 13
Notice and Service of Process…………..……………..…………………………………………………….…………………..……………….……………….. Pg. 14
Removal..………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..………………………………… Pg. 16
Venue and Transfer……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..…………….……………………….. Pg. 17
Pleading..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..…………….…………………………………………………….… Pg. 19
Responding to the Complaint..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..…………….……………………… Pg. 23
Pre-Answer Motions……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..…………….……………………… Pg. 25
Relation Back……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..…………….…….…………….…………….. Pg. 31
Parties and Joinder……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..………….….…………..…………… Pg. 32
Supplemental Jurisdiction……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..………………..…….……. Pg. 42
Discovery……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..…………….………………….…………………… Pg. 45
Summary Judgment……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..……….……..…………..………… Pg. 50
Judgment as a Matter of Law……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……….……………….……….…… Pg. 53
Jury Trial……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..…………….……….……….………..……………. Pg. 54
Judgment and Remedies……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….………………….…………….…………… Pg. 56
New Trial and Relief from Judgment……………..……………..……………..…………………………………………….…….…….……..………..…… Pg. 59
Claim Preclusion……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..……….…….…………………………… Pg. 61
Issue Preclusion……………..……………..……………..………………………………………………….……………..………….….……….…………………… Pg. 64
1. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The scope of the federal courts is constrained by both the U.S. Constitution (Art. III §3, clause 2) and by Congress (Title 28 U.S.C.).
§ 1332 Diversity Jurisdiction
Under §1332 a citizen of one state may sue a citizen of another in federal court, even though her claim arises under state law, if she has a colorable claim for more than $75,000.
Policy: The Framer’s apparent reason for singling out diversity cases for federal jurisdiction was a fear that out-of-state citizens would suffer prejudice if they were forced to litigate against local citizens in the local state courts.
1) The Domicile Test
Individuals:
§1332(a) a person’s domicile is determined by the most recent state where she has (1) presence with (2) intent to remain indefinitely
· A person intends to remain indefinitely in a state if she is residing in the state on an open-ended basis, without the intent to leave at a definite time or on the occurrence of a definite event.
· If a party is living in a state without definite plans to leave, the domicile test regards that state as her “home”
· Until the two prongs coincide in a new state, your old domicile continues, whether you plan to return to that state or not.
· The practical factors/evidence may be useful in evaluating a person’s subjective intent, but the ultimate fact to be proved, under the domicile test, is the intent itself.
· Miscellaneous Details:
· Unemancipated minor has the same domicile as her parents
· The executives of the estate of a deceased share the domicile of the decedent
· A partnership’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of each individual partner
· For the purposes of the Statute, a state includes: territories, D.C., and Puerto Rico
“Complete Diversity”
Strawbridge v. Curtiss (1806)
Diversity Jurisdiction is only proper if all plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants.
Rule: You can have multiple defendants from the same state and multiple plaintiffs from the same state, but no plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant or her presence will “destroy diversity.”
Congress vs. the Constitution
· In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire (1967), SCOTUS held that Strawbridge interpreted the diversity statute, not Article III.
o Article III – a case is “between citizens of different states” so long as at least one plaintiff is diverse from one defendant.
o §1332 – a case is “between citizens of different states” so long as there is complete diversity (all plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants)
Corporations:
§1332(c)(1) a corporation is a citizen of (1) its state of incorporation, and (2) the state of its principal place of business
· A corporation is considered a citizen of both states, and
legal or factual basis for this claim, and thus there was a “legal certainty” that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.
Aggregation Rules
1) Single Defendant: Where a single plaintiff asserts two or more claims against a single defendant, the amounts may be added together to reach the required amount (§1367).
*However, she cannot “aggregate” claims against different defendants, except in the unusual situation where they are sued on “common, undivided interest.”
2) Multiple Defendants: A plaintiff must meet the amount requirement separately against each defendant.
*However, if a plaintiff sues two defendants for the same damages based on different theories, diversity is met as long as each defendant might be liable for more than the jurisdictional amount. (ex: P isn’t sure whether D1 or D2 caused his damages, so he sues them both).
3) Multiple Plaintiffs: As long as one plaintiff asserts a claim that satisfies the amount requirement, others may join as co-plaintiffs even though they are seeking less.
4) Counter Claims: The amount requirement must be assessed based only on the plaintiff’s claim, without regard to the value of any counterclaim.
§ 1331 Federal Questions Jurisdiction
Arising Under
Osborne interprets the constitutional scope of “arising under”
· Osburn v Bank of the U.S. only requires that one party rely on federal law to establish the claim (the federal issue could arise in the main complaint, a defense, a secondary issue, or a counterclaim).
· The phrase “arising under” in Article III §2 is very broadly construed. It is probably satisfied in any case in which a party seeks to rely on or establish a proposition of federal law in order to prove either a claim or a defense in the case.
Mottley interprets the Congressional scope of “arising under”
· Louiseville & Nashville RR v Motley sets forth the rule of the modern “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which asserts that the federal issue must arise as a necessary component of a well-pleaded complaint
· The phrase “arising under” in §1331 is much more narrowly construed. §1331 only applies if the plaintiff’s claim requires proof of federal law.
