PROFESSOR JAY – CIVIL PROCEDURE – FALL 2012
1. Overview
a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Power to adjudicate that kind of case presented.
i. Generally
1. Power to act.
2. The defendant must be provided with adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
ii. Federal Question cases – 28 USC 1331
1. Federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
2. Although cases to be decided under federal question jurisdiction have never been precisely defined, most cases will have federal law as the source of the cause of action.
3. Claims created by state law that require interpretation of a federal law do NOT fall within federal question jurisdiction.
4. Louisville v Mottley Federal question must arise in complaint. It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege an anticipated defense to his cause of action and assert that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the United States Constitution.
a. Well pleaded complaint rule: Is the plaintiff enforcing a federal right?
5. A counterclaim arising under federal law does not allow it to be removed to federal court. Must be in plaintiffs complaint.
iii. Diversity – 28 USC 1332
1. Amount in Controversy
a. The party seeking federal jurisdiction must show that his claim was made in good faith and that it is possible the amount in controversy is over $75,000. The party is not required to prove the actual value of the amount in controversy.
b. The party challenging the jurisdiction will only prevail if he shows with “legal certainty” that the claim will be adjudicated for less than $75,000.
c. The jurisdiction may not be challenged if the actual recovery turns out to be less than $75,000.
d. Under the majority rule, the amount at stake must be over $75,000 to either the plaintiff or the defendant.
e. A counterclaim may satisfy the $75,000 requirement.
i. If counterclaim is unrelated to claim and less than 75k, not allowed
f. P can make a claim under 75k to avoid removal due to diversity.
2. Multiple plaintiffs – Aggregation
a. Must add multiple claims to get over 75k
b. One plaintiff may aggregate several claims against a single defendant to reach the $75,000 minimum.
c. One plaintiff may not aggregate several claims against several defendants nor may he join claims against other defendants when he has aggregated several claims against one defendant to reach the minimum.
d. Multiple plaintiffs will qualify for federal jurisdiction when at least one plaintiffs claim is valued at $75,000.
e. Jurisdiction will not be allowed when several plaintiffs’ claims total $75,000 but no single claim is $75,000. Exception: Two or more plaintiffs enforcing the same right or interest that they share or own.
f. The same rules apply for class action suits.
g. Joint claims: total value must exceed 75k
3. Diversity of citizenship
a. Each plaintiff must be from a different state than each defendant. However, co-plaintiffs and co-defendants may be citizens from the same state.
i. Citizenship established by domicile: physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there. Redner v Sanders
ii. Residency not sufficient to establish domicile
b. Minimal Diversity In federal interpleader cases, there is diversity where one or more plaintiffs are from a different state than one or more of the defendants.
c. Citizenship is measured at the time the suit is brought, not at the time of the event in controversy.
d. Corporate citizenship for diversity purposes defined as the “nerve center” for principle place of business under 1332(c)(1). Hertz Corp v Friend
i. Partnerships use citizenship of ALL partners.
e. Can remove on the basis of diversity
4. Exceptions
a. Family law cases unless violation of federal law/constitution.
iv. Enumerated powers
1. Constitution
a. The Constitution enumerates various areas where the federal courts have original jurisdiction, such as admiralty and cases involving ambassadors and public ministers. None of these cases require the amount in controversy.
2. Statutes
a. Congress has also passed statutes granting federal courts exclusive and original jurisdiction over certain areas of the law, including patent and copyright law, antitrust law, and cases where the United States is a party. With the exception of cases where the United States is a defendant, no amount in controversy requirement need be met.
v. Supplemental Jurisdiction – 28 USC 1367
1. Federal courts may now hear almost any claim that is transactionally related to a claim that is properly before the court. “Transactionally related” means that the supplemental claim arises out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as the claim properly before the court.
a. Must be a common nucleus of operative fact meaning you would ordinarily try it in one case Ameriquest Mortgage Co
2. What is not Covered? (28 U. Section: 1367(b)): Claims brought by impleaded parties (FRCP 14), necessary parties (FRCP 19), indispensable parties (FRCP 20) and intervenors (FRCP 24) may not be attached to an existing diversity claim unless there is independent satisfaction of the diversity and amount in controversy requirements.
3. 28 USC 1341 – No jurisdiction over state tax matters.
4. Discretionary Dismissal (28 U. Section: 1367(c)) Even if a claim is not prohibited under Section: 1367(b), a court may still dismiss a supplemental claim at its discretion if:
a. Predominating State Claim When the state claim predominates over the federal case it would be fairer to have a state court decide the case.
b. Other Compelling Reasons The statute requires “exceptional circumstances,” but it has yet to be seen how rigid this requirement will be.
c. Novel or Complex State Law State courts are more qualified than federal courts to develop novel issues of state law. Szendrey-Ramos v First Bancorp
d. Dismissal of Federal Claims
vi. Challenges
1. 12(b)6: Failure to state a claim that violates federal law
2. 12(b)1: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
3. Su esponte: court should dismiss on their own accord.
b. Personal Jurisdiction: Power over the parties or property involved.
i. In personam jurisdiction
1. Physical Presence
a. Pennoyer v. Neff (S. 1877) A state court cannot assert in personam jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant was personally served with process in the state or the defendant voluntarily appeared before the court. But a state court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant’s property, even if the property is not related to the action at hand, if the property is located within the court’s jurisdiction.
b. Kinds of jurisdiction:
i. In Personam Personal service on the defendant within the state.
ii. In Rem Attachment of defendant’s in-state property when the defendant is out of state.
c. Momentary Presence Burnham v Superior Court of California, Split justices: Scalia: presence when served is good enough, 4 Brennan: must meet int’shoe standards
d. Jurisdiction may be asserted over any person entering the state for even a brief moment such as persons passing through by car or flying over in a plane.
2. Domicile
a. Defined A court has in personam jurisdiction over an individual though the person is not physically within the jurisdiction if that person was domiciled within the court’s jurisdiction.
b. Domicile is determined by:
i. Party’s intent to permanently locate there, and
ii. An affirmative act expressing such intent
iii. “physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.” Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc
c. Limitation
i. A person may only have one domicile, even though he has more than one residence.
3. Consent
a. A court may render a binding enforceable judgment against a party who consents to the jurisdiction of the court even if the court would not have had jurisdiction over the individual absent his consent.
b. Kinds of Consent
i. Express Consent
1. Defendant stipulates court’s jurisdict
urg) upheld jurisdiction, agree with Brennan (if you target usa you can be sued anywhere).
2. If that manufacturer develops a relationship with a U.S. distributor, sells goods to that distributor, and encourages U.S. sales, it will likely be subject to jurisdiction for claims arising from those sales in the state where it directs its goods
3. Mink v. AAAA Development, LLC., 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999) (website which constituted “passive advertisement” not sufficient to support jurisdiction).
g. Pavlovich v. Superior Court Merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Instead, the plaintiff must also point to contacts that demonstrate that the defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum.
h. Calder v Jones If a defendant commits an act outside the state that she knows will cause harmful effects within the state, she may be subject to minimum contacts jurisdiction there for claims arising out of that act.
i. Goodyear Continuous and systematic ties: Must be “at home” within the forum. Cannot be based on just buying/selling continuously in state. Must have more.
ii. In rem jurisdiction:
1. Jurisdiction based on a court’s power over a thing, not a person. The action is technically against the property, not a person. The subject of the litigation is related to the property. Must have attachment statute in state.
iii. Quasi in rem jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction based on an action against a person. Since the court is unable to obtain jurisdiction against the defendant, jurisdiction is obtained by seizing the defendant’s property. The property is NOT related to the action. The action is against the person not the property. Had the court been able to obtain jurisdiction against the defendant, the action would have been based upon in personam jurisdiction. Quasi in rem actions may force the sale of real property, garnishment of wages, or assignment of a debt.
2. Shaffer v. Heitner Quasi in rem jurisdiction may only be asserted when the defendant has the “minimum contacts” with the forum state that would satisfy the requirements for in personam jurisdiction as defined by International Shoe. The effect of this case is to almost eliminate the availability of quasi in rem jurisdiction. Shaffer blurred the difference between in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction.
iv. Long-arm Statutes
1. Every state has one. Some statutes might have lower limits than the constitutional limit.
c. Service of Process: Notice – Rule 4
i. Generally – Constitutional test
1. A court that has proper jurisdiction over a case may only proceed when the defendant has proper notice of the proceedings against him. Proper notice usually entails service of “process” consisting of a summons to appear and a copy of the complaint. The defendant need not necessarily receive actual notice of the suit but the procedures followed must be “reasonably likely” to provide notice. The defendant must have adequate time to prepare his defense. Actual notice is not necessarily required to be Constitutional.
2. Mullane v Central Hanover Bank Notice has to be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pending action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
