Civ Pro – Albirght
Spring 2012
Final: Tuesday, May 8th
I. The Dual Court System: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
To hear a case a Federal court must have:
– Personal Jurisdiction
– Subject Matter Jurisdiction
– Venue
a. Diversity Jurisdiction: 28 USC §1332, US Const Art. III
28 USC §1332 – grants Fed courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions where matter in controversy is greater than $75,000 and parties are citizens of different states.
Citizenship is evaluated in terms of Domicile, which is determined by the last place the person was in where they planned to stay indefinitely (not necessarily residency)
Domicile = “true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent.” A person changes their domicile once they take up residence in another state and have the intention to stay there indefinitely. A person can have only one domicile. Residency ≠ domicile. If a person changes residency but does not intend to stay there indefinitely then they maintain their previous domicile, even if they may have no intention of returning to their original state. Most important is person’s intent.
Alienage Jurisdiction = resident aliens are regarded as citizens of the state they are domiciled in for the purpose of destroying diversity. If a US Citizen is domiciled overseas, diversity jurisdiction cannot be established.
Complete Diversity Rule: complete diversity required under 28 USC §1332, meaning all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.
Corporate Citizenship: Corporations have domicile in both the state they were incorporated in (can be multiple states) as well as their principle place of business (only one state). Both state of incorporation and state of PPB have to be diverse from P.
Principle Place of Business = corporation’s “nerve center” (Hertz) Not necessarily where the corporate offices are but where the majority of operations are done.
Constitutional grant of diversity – broad, requires minimal diversity, any claim relating to Federal law (see Osburn Test)
Congressional grant of diversity – much more narrow, Federal court can only rule on subject matter if Congress allows, Congress can confer exclusive jurisdiction. (28 USC 1331)
b. Federal Question Jurisdiction: 28 USC §1331
Lower federal courts are established by Congress and so Congress regulates their jurisdiction.
Constitutional Scope (28 USC 1257): Osburn Test – Federal Question jurisdiction exists when there is a “non-frivolous issue of federal law”, whether raised in the plaintiff’s original complaint or the defendant’s answer. Sometimes called a “federal ingredient” to a claim.
Statutory Scope: Motley Test – FQ jurisdiction if a federal issue appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.
– The plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action must show that it is based on federal law or the US Constitution
– The court will ignore surplus language including any anticipation of the defendant’s defense claims, or non essential issues that the plaintiff brings up
– A counter-claim that arises under federal law will not provide federal question jurisdiction
Holmes’ creation test – FQ jurisdiction when P’s cause of action arises out of Federal law.
Centrality – akin to statutory limitation on FQ jurisdiction, unlike constitutional test of mere “ingredient,” to justify Fed. jurisdiction a Fed. issue must be sufficiently central to the claim.
“Centrality Test” – a claim where interpreting federal law is central to P’s right to relief is consider to arise out of federal law.
Grabble test – if an essential element of protecting P’s complaint requires resolving a matter of federal law it satisfies statutory limitations, so long as the matter of federal law is of sufficiently substantial importance to the federal gov’t.
Declaratory judgment – although allowed by federal statute, does not affect a finding of subject matter jurisdiction. Declaratory judgment is merely another remedy, not a right to be enforced or a grant of right to sue
SCOTUS Appellate jurisdiction – regulated by Congress, still very broad, can hear any federal issue that passes the Motley test. Will sometimes take
Scope of Constitutional and Statutory Federal Jurisdiction
c. Removal Jurisdiction: 28 USC §1441, 1446, 1447
CB: Ch. 5
POLICY: Rationale is that D should have the same right as P to argue their case in a Fed. court. Only D can invoke removal, P cannot remove in response to a counterclaim.
28 USC §1441(a) – D may remove a case if the case, as pleaded by P, could have been filed initially in federal court.
Forum Defendant Rule: 28 USC §1441(b), If claim does not arise out of a federal question and there is diversity jurisdiction, a case can only be removed if no D are citizens of the forum state. This allows for some forum shopping.
USC §1446 – If all defendants agree to move, D files notice of removal within 30 days of service. Case must be removed to the federal district court that embraces that place where the case was originally brought. D has burden to prove P’s claim invokes Fed. jurisdiction. Cases can’t be removed for diversity purposes more than 1 year after service.
USC §1447 – To contest the removal P must bring a motion to remand in the federal court within 30 days of D’s filing notice of removal. An order to remand to state court is not appealable.
II. Due Process &Personal Jurisdiction
Due Process requires that D’s not be subjected to suits in unexpected places, so there is a constitutional limit on where and when they can be forced to appear.
Types of Personal Jurisdiction:
In-Personam: court has juris. over D’s person, requires D to be domiciled in the state or have personal service.
In Rem: court has juris. over D’s property in the state, attaching property gives D notice of the dispute.
Quasi-in-rem: when D has property within the state but dispute is not regarding said property. Land is attached
CASE: Pennoyer: courts entering judgment against out-of-state defendants that it does not have jurisdiction over is a violation of due process. 4 traditional bases of jurisdiction are presense, domicile, consent, or property attached at filing. Also service by publication ≠ valid service.
Federal Long Arm Statute: – Rule 4(k), Authorizes personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is subject to jurisdiction of a court in the state where the district court sits. Also gives Federal court jurisdiction over specific types of claims authorized by federal statute, such as patent law.
Consent: serves to established PJ, satisfied by D’s appearance in court, D’s appointment of an agent, or possibly by implied consent (see Hess).
CASE: Hess: out-of-state driver case, Court extended Pennoyer ideal of consent to include implied consent, i.e. driving on a state’s road
trying to service process is “due diligence” meaning reasonable efforts under the circumstances.
Rule 4(e) – has to be either in hand service on the person or authorized agent, or leave with service where you can leave service papers w/ a person at D’s residence of suitable age and discretion. Can also follow the state laws for process for the court’s home state.
Texas Long-Arm Statute: Rule 106, allows for in-hand service, registered or certified mail, or any other method ordered by the court that is reasonably effective to provide actual notice.
Only time proper service is an issue is when D defaults; D can challenge a default judgment on the basis of inadequate service of process. Pre-trail dismissal for improper services comes via Rule 12(b)(5), post-trial motions are Rule 60(b)(1) for lack of notice (overturned a judge’s discretion) and Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of service (judgment must be void).
Summons and Complaints must be served.
Rule 4(h)(1) – Serving a corporation
IV. Venue
a. Venue Statutes: 28 USC §1391
Venue – the determination of where within the judicial system a case can be brought. Determined by statute and primarily a matter of convenience. Courts don’t have to determine the most convenient venue, only whether a venue is proper.
USC §1391(a) – if the claim is founded solely on diversity, it can be brought in a district court where i) D resides (if all D resides in the same state) ii) where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place, iii) if not other venue available, where any D is subject to personal jurisdiction (aka. Fallback provision).
USC §1391(b) – if the claim is not based on diversity, same rules except that fallback provision is that venue is appropriate for any district where D “can be found.”
Corporations: for venue purposes, corporations resides in any district in which it has sufficient contacts to satisfy personal jurisdiction if that district were a state. If no such district exists it resides in the district with which it has the most significant contacts.
“…events giving rise” = if D’s actions in the district created D’s liability. Ex: A contracts with B (domiciled in Eastern Dis. Of VA) for architectural design services rendered in VA to construct a building in Middle Dis. of TN. B breaches. Venue is not proper in Mid. Dis. of TN – B’s services are rendered entirely in VA.
b. Venue Challenges & Forum Non Conveniens: 28 USC §1404, 1406, Rule 12
§1404 – Venue Transfer, used when the transferor court is a valid/proper venue. A district court may transfer a case to any other proper district court where it might have been brought for convenience of the parties, of the witnesses, or in the interest of justice. Judge has the authority to transfer to proper venue sua sponte.
