Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure
Fall 2009—Juliano

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (see 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) for lack of SMJ)
a. Introduction à Plaintiffs must file suit in a court permitted by relevant law to entertain the type of claim asserted. Federal District Courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction—they can hear only certain kinds of cases as prescribed by the US Constitution and Federal Statutes. Trial Courts of each state have general subject matter jurisdiction—they can hear nearly all cognizable claims.
b. State Courts and General SMJ à States are free to divide SMJ among whatever courts they decide to establish. Many states establish specialized tribunals; some divide SMJ by monetary lines.
i. Though not all courts in the state can hear all cases, the courts of a particular state, in aggregate, have general subject matter jurisdiction.
c. Federal Courts and Limited SMJ à Constitution grants federal court powers through Article III. Congress cannot exceed these limits in conferring jurisdiction upon the federal courts; Article III does not require Congress to grant full power of constitutional SMJ to federal courts.
i. Federal SMJ is not conferrable by “consent.”
1. A Federal Court’s lack of SMJ is not a defense that can be waived, see Rule 12(h)(3) à any party or the court can raise the issue, even after judgment—if P removes it under this, can start over in State court.
2. If judgment entered and lack of SMJ found, usually the case starts over at state level. SoL problem can occur.
ii. There is a presumption against federal jurisdiction, and P must properly plead that it exists (e.g. Rule 8(a)(1)—must state grounds of jurisdiction)
1. If D challenges this, burden shifts to P to prove otherwise
d. Article III, sec. 1 à Establishes Supreme Court and lower courts (does not provide appellate or district courts). Also gives federal judges tenure, and leaves room for congress to set up additional courts.
e. Article III, sec. 2 à Lists cases courts can hear:
i. Maritime
ii. Citizens of different states
iii. Two or more states in controversy
iv. A state and a citizen of a different state
v. Cases where US is a party
vi. Cases where ambassador foreign consul is party
vii. Parties are of same state, but land granted by different states
viii. Cases of constitutional or federal law, or treaties formed under federal law.
1. [Bankruptcy/Patents/other implied
ix. Where a party is foreign
x. Where a party is a foreign state
f. Requisites for Bringing a Federal Claim:
i. Must be under Article III
ii. Must be under §§ 1331, 1332.
II. SMJ: DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND ALIENAGE
a. Reasons for Alienage à (1) give aliens involved in litigation with American citizens a forum free from local politics, and (2) treat this as a matter of such importance and place it on the dockets of the national courts
b. Reasons for Diversity à to provide a neutral forum for resolution of cases between citizens from different states (free from “hometown” local politics)
i. Theory à the availability of an impartial forum may have made it easier for enterprises to invest in other states and thus may have fostered economic expansion
ii. Critics à diversity only changes the judge who presides, it does not change the applicable law—evaporated local bias in age of communication/travel

SPECIAL CASES: Limited SMJ Through Diversity
Federal Interpleader Act (property disputes) à grants federal SMJ upon “minimal diversity,” or having at least one adverse claimant of diversity from another.
Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act à permits the invocation of minimum diversity regarding cases arising from an accident that caused at least 75 deaths. This was expanded to cases where the aggregate amount in the class action controversy exceeds $5m.

c.

d. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) – Diversity of Citizenship; Amount in Controversy; Costs
i. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75k, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between:
1. Citizens of different states
2. Citizens of a state and citizens of subjects of a foreign state
3. Citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
4. Foreign state (defined 1603(a)) as P and citizens of a state/different states
ii. For the purposes of this section, 1335 and 1441, an alien admitted to the US for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the state in which such alien is domiciled

Notes on 1332 and Diversity Requirements
– Amount in Controversy à Amount claimed by P in good faith, not the award.
– Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey à A territory, for SMJ, equals a state.
– 1332 Amendment à to allow aliens admitted to US for permanent residence to be considered citizen of state for diversity purposes. Courts generally use this to defeat (alienage) diversity jurisdiction, not create it (situation of two aliens).
– Dual Citizenship à most courts will not allow the foreign citizenship to create alienage jurisdiction where diversity would not exist. Some courts even say this means that the other party must prove diversity from both citizenships to allow for diversity requirement.

e. Complete Diversity Rule
i. EX/ Strawbridge v. Curtis à Plaintiff tries to bring federal suit because one of the Ds is from out of state. A bunch of other Ds are from same state as P
1. Sets up a Complete Diversity Rule à All parties must be diverse—rule essentially says that because one D is from out of state, a partial trial should not be expected. P’s burden to prove complete diversity.
f. The Amount in Controversy Requirement à Serves two functions: reflect notion that a federal tribunal should not be a small claims court and to control the docket.
i. A P who claims > $75k but recovers less may be ordered to pay the D’s costs.
ii. Courts dismiss very few cases for failure to satisfy amount requirement. St. Paul Mercury v. Red Cab ruled that a P’s good faith claim for more than the amount required controls, unless it “appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less…” Sanctions may be brought here.
1. When the issue is raised, it is only where the judge concludes that “to a legal certainty” P can only be awarded less (P’s burden). P gets benefit of doubt.
2. This typically only becomes an issue when P seeks punitive damages because these are not acceptable in civil claims.
g. Aggregation of Claims to Meet the Amount in Controversy Requirement
i. One P v. One D à P may aggregate all claims to meet jurisdictional requirement, even if claims are unrelated legally or transactionally. Only extreme examples look like abuse; EX/ aggregating 54 separate small claims
1. Note: For aggregations, partnerships are treated as one entity
ii. Multiple Parties on Either Side à Aggregation is generally not allowed. Aggregation cannot be made merely because the claims are derived from a single instrument, either.
1. With “common, undivided or joint” claims, courts usually permit aggregation. These terms are not self-defining and are troublesome. EX/ personal injuries by two Ps are separate claims and cannot be aggregated (but when there are two Ds instead, aggregate!).
iii. Equitable Relief à How can one put a dollar value on certain injunctions; Tr