Civil Procedure II Outline

Part I – Adjudicative Jurisdiction

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Basic Principles

a. Bringing a case in federal court requires BOTH subject matter jurisdiction AND personal jurisdiction (they are separate requirements)

b. Categories of Subject-matter jurisdiction

i. Federal question (enacted after civil war) * main category *

ii. Diversity of citizenship (enacted by Federal Judiciary Act) * main category *

iii. Alienage jurisdiction (enacted by Federal Judiciary Act)

iv. Admiralty jurisdiction (enacted by Federal Judiciary Act)

c. Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction

i. Any party to the action may challenge it

ii. The court may raise it sua sponte

iii. It can be challenged at ANY TIME

d. Original Jurisdiction – term of art used to describe when the court has the authority and subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case from the very beginning (as compared to appellate jurisdiction)

i. For federal courts, it’s outlined in 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1332, 1338

e. Appellate Jurisdiction – when Congress decides that the decision of a federal court should be subject to appeal

f. Concurrent Jurisdiction – means that there exists two or more courts who are able to hear the same case and so a P has a choice as to which way to go (often a choice between a state and a federal court, or a choice between two state courts)

g. Exclusive Jurisdiction – those circumstances where a case can ONLY be heard in federal court (has to involve federal law)

II. Sources of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

a. Constitutional Limits

i. Article III creates the federal court system

ii. The Constitution outlined the maximum power, and Congress retains ultimate authority as to how much responsibility/power to give the courts

iii. Article III – § 1

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

1. State courts were around before the constitution, and therefore are not products of it, and the Constitution does not have the power to create or destroy state courts

2. Gave congress the right to create courts under the Supreme Court (and the 1st congress did so) – the 1st Judiciary Act of 1789

3. Article III – §2

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

4.

b. Statutory Enablement

i. 28 USC §1331 – Gives federal district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US (aka ***FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION***)

ii. 28 USC §1334 – Gives federal district courts jurisdiction over matters connected with bankruptcy

iii. 28 USC §1338 – Gives courts exclusive jurisdiction over patent, plant variety protection, and copyright infringement claims, and concurrent jurisdiction over trademark claims

III. Federal Question Jurisdiction and the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

a. Article III, § 2 – of the US Constitution gives federal courts the authority to hear “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties…”

b. 28 USC §1331 is the “general” federal question statute

i. No amount in controversy requirement

ii. In most cases it’s concurrent, NOT exclusive

c. Well-pleaded complaint rule

i. The “arising under” language in §1331 has been interpreted to require a P to present the federal question on the face of P’s complaint.

ii. It is a narrow conception of what ‘arising under’ jurisdiction means

iii. You look at the complaint, and then you look at the complaint as it should have been written (without looking at any defenses)

iv. Merely including a federal issue is not sufficient, it must be necessary to P’s case

IV. Diversity Jurisdiction and the Complete Diversity Rule

a. *******Diversity MUST exist when the suit is filed (that’s the date that matters)**********

b. Complete Diversity Rule – says that when you have multiple parties, there must be complete diversity on each side. You can have overlap on one side, but once the other side overlaps the diversity is gone.

i. This is an example of his interpretation of a statute, giving the judiciary less power than the maximum permitted by the constitution

c. Diversity must exist WHEN THE SUIT IS FILED (that’s the date that matters)

d. Litigators sometimes intentionally add parties to a suit in order to destroy diversity jurisdiction

e. USC §1332 – Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—

1. citizens of different States;

2. citizens of a State and citizens or 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. a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

* * *

(b) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title—

1. a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen, as well as of any State by which the insurer has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business…

f. To be a ‘citizen’ of any state in the United States, you must be both:

i. A US citizen, AND

ii. Be domiciled in that state

1. Domicile – A person is considered domiciled where he has his current dwelling place and the intention to remain in that place for an indefinite period.

g. Cases

i. Redner v. Sanders (2000 – p. 193)

1. Facts: P is a United States citizen who was residing in France and ∆’s were residents of the State of NY. P filed a suit against ∆ in a federal court, seeking to establish diversity jurisdiction. ∆ submitted a 12(b)(1) motion to challenge jurisdiction. The action was dismissed.

2. Rule: For purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(2), the controversy must be between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, not merely “residents”.

V. Aliens as Litigants in US Courts: Alienage Jurisdiction and the Alien Tort Statute

a. Alienage Jurisdiction

i. Enabled by 28 USC 1332 (a)(2)

ii. Also requires that the matter in controversy exceed $75,000

iii. An alien cannot sue another alien and qualify for diversity jurisdiction

iv. There must be a citizen on one side, and there must be complete diversity

1. A v. A → NO

2. C v. A → YES

3. C v. A & C → depends if C’s are from the same state or not (b/c you need complete diversity)… if they’re citizens of the same state diversity is destroyed

4. A + C v. A → NO diversity… having an alien on both sides destroys diversity. This might work under the Article III but not as Congress has permitted

VI. Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 USC §1367)

a. Relates to cases that on their own don’t deserve to be in federal court, but get to piggyback on a claim that does

b. It is unnecessary to consider supplemental