Civil Procedure I Outline

CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
 
I.                   SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
 
·      Federal Question: 28 USC 1331
a)      1331 “arising under” jurisdiction depends on substance of Ps claim. If challenge attacks the claim, no fed claim therefore no jurisdiction, if it attacks the jurisdiction, no jurisdiction because no federal claim
b)      Declaratory judgment act: have to look at what the plaintiff’s claim would be (not defendant’s even though he brought the action); fed Q must be part of the “well pleaded complaint” (Mottley)
     Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley: Lifetime pass for free rides as settlement; now unlawful. Cause of action is breach of contract (state law claim); anticipated defense of constitutional validation does not show that action arises under constitution. Test: federal question must be part of well-pleaded complaint.
 
·      Diversity of Citizenship: 28 USC 1332
a)      Requirements of Jurisdiction: (1332b) meet/exceed amount req. & (1332a,c) diversity at time of filing.
b)      Amount in controversy :
·         1332b: Ps claim for damages/injunction must meet or exceed value of $75,000
·         Aggregation (when claims can be combined to meet statutory amount for SMJ)
–          1 P with 2+ unrelated claims against 1 D may aggregate
–          2 Ps each have claims against 1 D may not if claims are separate & distinct (same test as T/O)
–          1 P with claim over stat amt & 1 P with claim less than stat amt against 1 D; P1 has SMJ, P2 may get supplemental (1367) if claims related
–          Multiple Ps or Ds, with common undivided interest & single right; value of total interest determines amount in controversy. Not true if claims are several & distinct
–          Class actions: class rep must satisfy amt; aggregating all members not sufficient
–          Ps claim meets amt: compulsory counter claim may be heard regardless of amt; permissive counter claim requires independent SMJ
 
è    1332: (a1) State 1 v. State 2; (a2) alien v. State; (a3) State 1 & alien 1 v. State 2 & alien 2, (a4) alien P v. state 1, then alien with permanent residence is citizen of state in which he is domiciled.
è    1332c1: corporation deemed citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated AND of state where it has its principle place of business.
 
Redner v. Sanders: 1332(a)(2) – out of state
P is citizen of US but resident of France. Court says no diversity b/c rule is about citizenship. D files 12b1 and P responds with affidavit under 1332a1 but that was not specific enough and court says P should have filed motion to amend complaint. P is outside of scope of 1332 b/c he is a US citizen but not a citizen of any state. Test for citizenship is present domicile and intent to remain indefinitely. P could either move to CA to establish domicile or get French citizenship. 1332a1 does not imply complete diversity, but Strawbridge case does and it has been undisputed law ever since that holding.
           Saadeh v. Farouki: Greek (became US during trial) citizen v. alien US resident. 1332a’s plain language permits non-resident alien v. resident alien, but may be unconstitutional under III.II. 1332a meant to limit jurisdiction, not expand; intended meaning accepted, no SMJ in suits between citizen & alien living in same state, not meant to create SMJ where it never existed. Neither was US citizen at time of filing.
 
·      Supplemental: 28 USC 1367
Two prong test: (1) Power – whether claim that would be added shares a common nucleus of operative facts with the original claim, (2) Discretion – interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, etc.
1367(a): jurisdiction over any claim that is so closely related to any claim (case in controversy) with original jurisdiction. Question whether this language is more expansive that “nucleus of operative facts”
1367(b): no power
1367(c): the court can exercise its discretion
           Jin v. Ministry of State Security: practitioners suing China and CTC of civil rights violation and defamation (aired staged video that has ruined their yoga-type practice). CTC is TV company & they move to dismiss under 12b1 and 12b6. Court denied 12b1 and granted 12b6 b/c statute of limitations had run. Court based their decision on DC law so the ruling was binding and the case could not be heard in DC state courts if filed again.
           Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District:Wrongful death for electrocution. OPPD impleads OEC (crane owner, NB headquarters) under FR 14 & 15. OPPD out, K v. OEC remains. OEC claims principle business is Iowa (for 1332c diversity). No SMJ because P couldn’t have brought it in the beginning without destroying diversity. Common nucleus, but 1332 more limited and requires complete diversity. (1367b) P cannot bring direct claim against non-diverse 3rd party in diversity action with no independent SMJ. The court here used common law because 1367 actually did not exist yet.
 
·      Removal: 1441, 1446, 1447
P has choice where to file, but D can remove
o       1441a: Diversity action (1332) brought in state court may be removed to federal court, if had original SMJ; D cannot remove in his own state & non-resident D who is joined with resident D cannot remove.
o       1441b: Federal Question cases (1331) brought in state court are removable without regard to citizenship
o       1446b: notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after receipt of the initial pleading
o       1447: procedure after removal
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis: Removed to Fed ct when complete diversity did not exist. Post-removal to fed court, all claims with non-diverse D were settled; complete diversity existed. Removal made in error, no original jurisdiction at time of removal; BUT in interest of judicial efficiency, by time trial occurred, jurisdiction was appropriate so verdict stands.
 
Difference between Cat & Mottley: Mottley had fed question in complaint, but court said it was a defense; so jurisdiction was never sufficient for fed court to hear. Cat’s jurisdiction problem was cured by trial.
 
II.                PERSONAL JURISDICTION
 
Courts need to have the ability to exercise power over a specific party (defendant) to a case in order for the case to be tried there. Courts need power and notice over defendant in order to litigate a case. Both are subject to 14th Amendment due process clause.
 
Power: long-arm statute AND constitutional power (after Gibbons)… constitutional power isn’t enough; have to have federal or state statutory provision that provides for jurisdiction over non resident… (4k). Cannot serve person outside state (state sovereignty) unless have both statute and constitutional requirements of IS, status, consent or maybe presence.
Notice: statutory AND constitutional analysis. Constitutional test is Mullane, “reasonable under the circumstances”; also have to comply with FR4, state or federal law (state mechanism comes from 4e)
 
·      Power
Consistent with Constitutional requirements & Statutes.
Long-arm statutes : Gibbons v. Brown (shows restraint over jurisdiction): filing of suit in FL not “substantial, non-isolated” activity to meet state long-arm statute requirement
Constitutional (MCCNFPSJ): Purpose of “Minimum Contacts Consistent with Notions of Fair Play & Substantia