C1 Jurisdiction
Q1)Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?
· Goes to constitutional power of the courts, federalism
Q2)Does the court have personal jurisdiction?
· Goes to Due Process over D
· Power of the court over the defendant, not the dispute
· You need to answer yes to Q1 and Q2 or courts can’t hear the case
Q3)Has the D been given notice and an opportunity to be heard?
· Also goes to Due Process
· Without this there would be no fairness
Q4)Has the D been served with process properly?
· Not a big, constitutional question
· More about whether the service of process rule has been complied with
Q5)Does the court have venue?
· Also of lesser magnitude than the first three
· System of rules by which a court system determines its dispersal of business among its units
Q6)Can this action in a state court be removed to a federal court?
· Presupposition that it is in a state court, if not, then question inapplicable
· Emphasized more in course interested in federalism
Q7)Have any of the preceding six issues been waived?
· Always ask if any of the jurisdictional issues 1-6 been waived
C1Q1: Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? (SMJ)
· SMJ from Article III of Const. (supp. pg 1)
· SMJ can’t be waived, P or D can challenge, Court must address if no one else does
· Burden to prove SMJ on party claiming court has it
Three types of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
§1. Federal Question Jurisdiction
§2. Diversity Jurisdiction
§3. Supplemental Jurisdiction
C1Q1, §1: Federal Question Jurisdiction
1) Concept:
1) Plaintiff’s cause of action must arise under the constitution, treaties, or laws of the US
(1) 28 USC § 1331: Supp pg 2
(a) States have concurrent jurisdiction unless Congress gave it exclusively to federal courts
(2) Make sure you say “arise under” stuff in final exam
2) The “well-pleaded complaint” rule
1) Determine what would be subject matter jurisdiction or not based on what would be in a well-pleaded complaint
i) A well-pleaded complaint doesn’t anticipate defenses, so a federal defense doesn’t cut it
ii) But you also can’t omit “necessary federal questions” in a well-pleaded complaint
(1) Counterclaims presenting fed questions in response to original complaint don’t get fed question jurisdiction
3) Example of well-pleaded complaint rule:
1) P goes to fed court, alleges copyright owned under title 17 of US code, the Copyright Act, on the movie Mission Impossible. Had contract for movie theater to play movie and P gets portion of profits, but P hasn’t been paid. Sues for damages. Federal Question or not?
(1) Prof trying to fool you by flashing federally created right, that of copyright
(2) Also trying to fool you with a federal statute, the Copyright Act
ii) This is not a federal question issue. Only thing that is alleged is a breach of contract.
(1) Breach of contract doesn’t arise under the copyright law, only under the common law. The cause of action must arise under the federal statute.
2) Suppose same plaintiff, same circumstances except that P adds that the only reason that D hasn’t paid P is that D thinks the copyright on the motion picture is invalid.
i) Surely, you think, a question of whether a copyright is valid or not raises a necessary federal question?
ii) No! All the P has done i
he statutory violation
9) State law cause of action needing determination of meaning or application of federal law
1) Smith – applies where COA state based, but well-pled complaint demonstrates need for meaning/application of fed law.
i) Because of need to determine meaning or application, case may still ‘arise under’ fed law.
2) Test to see if you have fed question jurisdiction here:
i) Does proof of that cause of action require proof of a proposition of federal law?
ii) Is this a central issue of the case?
(1) If not central issue of the case or if allowing a COA under this federal law is contrary to Congress’s intent, then not a federal question.
10) So this is great, and give some general ideas, but need to have some more defined rule that can be applied broadly to cases with an application of federal law to a state based cause of action:
11) Grabel v Darue
1) “Does a state law claim
i) necessarily raise a stated federal issue
(1) Like the need to interpret a federal statute to resolve a quiet title claim.
(2) Mottley – well-pleaded complaint
(3) Just because a federal issue is raised doesn’t mean the case couldn’t necessarily be resolved without it
ii) actually disputed and
(1) How can you know if it’s disputed at the time of the complaint – wouldn’t really know until the answer was made.