I.Bconstitution: Article III, Section 2

1

Civil Procedure

ISubject Matter Jurisdiction

I.AAuthority under applicable constitutional and statutory provisions to adjudicate the type of controversy before the court: statute must be consistent with the broad constitutional grant of subject matter jurisdiction, as congress cannot authorize more jurisdiction than the constitution allows.

I.BConstitution: Article III, Section 2

I.B.1Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution authorizes federal courts to hear cases b/w citizens of different states, commonly referred to as diversity jurisdiction, to prevent local bias; the constitutional grant is satisfied as long as there is minimal diversity between the parties, one plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than one defendant. Article III, Section 2 does not directly confer diversity jurisdiction on the federal district courts. The power of Congress to create lower federal courts includes the power to define their jurisdiction by statute. It may authorize them to hear all cases within the constitutional grant of diversity, or some, or none.

I.B.2Article III, Section 2 authorizes courts to hear “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.” According to Osborn, the Framers recognized that federal courts, created and administered by the federal government, must have the power to interpret and enforce federal law. In Osborn, the constitutional grant of federal question jurisdiction in Article III, Section 2 was broadly construed: So long as a case involves a non-frivolous issue of federal law, a “federal ingredient,” a federal court may be authorized to hear it. The power of Congress to create lower federal courts includes the power to define their jurisdiction by statute. Article III, Section 2 sets the outer limit, but Congress may authorize federal courts to hear all cases within the constitutional grant, or some, or none. Congress has authorized the federal district courts to hear some cases that arise under federal law, but not others.

I.CDiversity Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. 1332 (a)

I.C.1The diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. 1332, is narrower than the Article III grant. It imposes an amount in controversy requirement, determined by whether the plaintiff might recover more than $75,000 from the defendant if he wins (courts have held that a single plaintiff may aggregate separate claims against a single defendant). In addition, Strawbridge holds that the statute requires complete diversity: no plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant. 1332(a).

I.C.2Configurations contemplated: (1) Citizens of different states (NY v. MA); (2) Citizens of State and citizens of foreign state (NY v. FR); (3) Citizens of different states and in which citizens of foreign state are parties (NY & FR v. MA & FR); (4) A foreign state and citizens of State or different states (Country of France v. NY & MA)

I.C.3A person is a citizen of the state where he is domiciled. To be a state citizen for diversity purposes, he must be a citizen of the US (or admitted for permanent residence). Most courts hold that a person’s domicile is the last state in which he resided with intent to remain indefinitely.

I.C.4Corporations are also held to be state citizens for diversity purposes. 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) states that a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business, nerve center, where the managers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities, often headquarters under Hertz.

I.DFederal Question Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. 1331

I.D.128 U.S.C. 1331 grants jurisdiction to the federal district court over all cases “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” The grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 1331 is narrower than the Osborn interpretation of the Article III, Section 2 scope of federal question jurisdiction. Under Mottley’s well-pleaded complaint rule, the court looks only to the plaintiff’s claim in determining whether a case arises under federal law.

I.D.2In general, the Holmes test works to determine whether a case satisfies the Mottley requirement. If federal law creates the cause of action that the plaintiff seeks to enforce, the federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. Is the plaintiff enforcing a federal right; in Mottley, the plaintiff was saying federal law did not apply. Federal question cases include cases such as those that involve federal regulatory regimes, such as Labor Law, Environmental Law, Federal Tax, Patent, and Securities Law (statutes enacted by Congress, not state legislatures)

I.D.3If the plaintiff seeks relief on a state law cause of action, it usually does not. Cases that are not “federal question” cases but instead cases that arise under state law include contracts cases, torts cases, property cases, most criminal cases, domestic relations cases, inheritance cases, and other cases under state statutes that involve law made by the states rather than the federal government; unless the parties are diverse, such cases must be litigated in state court (state and federal courts are said to have concurrent jurisdiction over diversity cases).

I.D.4Occasionally, a case will be held to arise under federal law even though the plaintiff seeks recovery on a state claim. In cases such as Grable v. Darue, the Supreme Court has recognized that sometimes a plaintiff will have to establish an important proposition of federal law in order to prove a state law claim.

I.D.5Depending on the importance of the federal issue, whether federal jurisdiction would disrupt the allocation of business between state and federal courts, and other prudential factors, a court may find that the federal district court has jurisdiction over a state law claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (hard Erie cases where state law clashes with national interests).

I.D.6The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is established in Article III, Section 2. It is also regulated statutorily, but the statutes regulating the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction are much broader than the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C 1331. Many state court cases involve issues of federal law, and the Supreme Court can review them, even if the federal issue is raised as a defense or in some other posture. Though such cases do not satisfy the Mottley rule, they are within the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

I.D.7If a court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. FRCP 12(h)(3). Subject matter jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte, by the court, or at any time by the parties. Capron.

I.ESupplemental Jurisdiction: Gibbs and 28 U.S.C. 1367

I.E.1Jurisdiction over the added state law claim(s): inquiry into whether the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the state law claim b/c of its relation to the main claim that supports federal jurisdiction

I.E.2We are in federal court b/c of diversity or federal question jurisdiction, but there is some other claim being asserted; we must look at every claim being asserted b/c there must be federal smj over all claims: Q1 - Does each claim meet diversity or federal question jurisdiction? If one does not, try supplemental

I.E.3Gibbs notes that the Article III grants jurisdiction over cases and posits a “same nucleus of operative fact” test for determining when the constitutional standard for getting a non-diversity, non-federal question jurisdiction claim heard is met. The Gibbs test is relevant only after federal question or diversity jurisdiction establish subject matter jurisdiction the main claim. The Gibbs test for constitutionality works in tandem with the 28 U.S.C. 1367 statutory provisions, just as Article III works in tandem with the narrowing provisions of the diversity (1332) and federal question (1331) statutes.

I.E.4Does 1367(a) grant jurisdiction? Answer is yes if it meets Gibbs common nucleus of operative fact, same transaction or occurrence test

I.E.5Does 1367(b) take away that grant? Applies only in diversity cases; only takes away supplemental jurisdiction claims by the plaintiffs (claim by plaintiff must meet all diversity requirements-amount in controversy and complete diversity); was not meant to expand

I.E.61367(c) Courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction if state law is complex, claim substantially predominates over federal law claim, federal law claim is dismissed, or other reasons like jury confusion

I.FRemoval

I.F.1Object of removal is for either party to be able to have a case heard in federal court if the case is within federal jurisdiction: If a plaintiff files a case in state court that could have been filed in federal court initially or the federal district courts have original jurisdiction, the federal removal statute allows the defendant to remove the case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. 1441. One exception is 1441(b), which bars removal of a diversity case if any defendant resides in the state in which the suit is brought. (30 days from receiving pleading or order from which it can first be determined that the case is removable 28 U.S.C. 1446(b))

I.F.2One removal statute 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) functions as a specialized venue statute: requires removal of a state case to the federal district that covers the geographic area where the state court sits; way to get case to a different federal venue after removal is transfer

I.F.3Removal is automatic. Even if the defendant removes a non-removable case, it will be pending in federal court once the notice of removal is filed and the state court is notified. A party who believes that the case was improperly removed or that it is not within the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction should move in the federal court to remand the case.

I.F.4Motion for remand or moving claim from federal to state court: Motions to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time prior to final judgment in the case. Motions based on other objections, such as a late notice of removal or failure of a co-defendant to agree to the removal, must be raised within thirty days after removal. If these non-jurisdictional objections are not asserted within this thirty-day period, they are waived.

I.F.5Court assesses its jurisdiction as of the beginning of the case, so if the federal claims drop and parties are non-diverse, the court still has jurisdiction, but also has discretion to hear or remand state law claims to state court. Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. It is likely that a court would choose to remand state law claims if the federal claim dropped out early, since there is little rationale for hearing the state claims in federal court.

I.F.6All defendants must agree to remove. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin.

I.F.7If plaintiff thinks that the case is not removable or that the defendant did not use the proper procedure to remove, she should move in the federal court to remand the action to the state court. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) within 30 days of removal

IIPersonal Jurisdiction

II.AAuthority to require the defendant to appear in the forum and defend the action there: plaintiff can sue the defendant in any state where the court has power over the defendant herself or the defendant's property. A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if it has the constitutional authority to do so and the relevant statute authorizes the particular exercise of pj at issue.

II.A.1Statutory Analysis: The Constitution does not confer personal jurisdiction on the courts of a state; the state legislature does. Within constitutional bounds, states typically define the reach of personal jurisdiction in their courts through long arm statutes, which specify contacts with the state that allow their courts to assert jurisdiction over the defendant. Does the state long-arm statute permit service of process to the full extent of the constitution? A court typically does not have personal jurisdiction unless it is both granted in the long arm statute and permitted under the Constitution. Many states’ long arm statutes give the courts as much personal jurisdiction authority as the Constitution allows. Some give the courts less personal jurisdiction authority than the constitution allows; in the event that a state gives more, that grant is irrelevant as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

II.A.2Constitutional Analysis: Courts usually look to the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause to determine whether a particular forum should be allowed to exercise pj over a defendant. The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states, not the federal government, and says “No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” A federal court’s power is usually limited by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, which is similar to the Fourteenth Amendment, but has been interpreted to permit the federal court to exert much more pj authority than the Fourteenth Amendment permits the state courts to execute. See Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (11th Circuit case discussing differences b/w Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment analyses of pj). The Fifth Amendment, however, like the Fourteenth Amendment, does not automatically confer on a court the power to exercise personal jurisdiction. Typically, a long arm provision must confer that authority. The long arm provision that applies in most federal cases is Rule 4(k)(1)(A). It states that personal jurisdiction exists over a “defendant who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district is located.” A federal court can usually exercise pj over a defendant only if the courts of the state in which that federal court sits could do so, so the relevant question is does the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause permit personal jurisdiction this context? That is determined, first, by the state’s long-arm statute and, then, by the progeny of cases interpreting personal jurisdiction.

II.BModern in personam jurisdiction and the distinctions b/w Specific (plaintiff’s cause of action arises out of or relates to defendant’s contacts with the forum), General jurisdiction (even if plaintiff’s cause of action does not arise out of or relate to defendant’s contacts with the forum, defendant can be sued in the forum for a claim that arises anywhere in the world because of defendant’s contacts with the forum), and other categories - Glannon, Perlman, and Raven-Hansen separate domicile, transient presence (tag), and consent/ waiver, whereas some authors group those categories with general jurisdiction. After the defendant’s contacts with the forum are defined with specificity, the most lenient test to determine if a cause of action arises out of or relates to defendant’s contacts with the forum is the “but for” test:

II.B.1But for defendant’s contacts with the forum, plaintiff would not have the current cause of action

II.CPrerequisite information: In some respects, International Shoe overrules Pennoyer. After Shoe, a court can exercise pj over a defendant even if the defendant was not served within the state, was not domiciled or present in the state, and did not otherwise consent to be sued in the state. Contacts provide a new and independent basis for establishing pj that did not exist under the Pennoyer framework. At the same time, some basic principles from Pennoyer remain intact. The territorial authority of a court is still important. For example, a defendant must generally have a contact within the forum state in order to be subject to a lawsuit there. Moreover, some of the basic methods for establishing pj remain effective. For instance, personal service on an individual defendant while the defendant is within the state still supports personal jurisdiction, at least in most circumstances. Burnham. Domicile and consent also remain legitimate bases for establishing pj. Finally, the focus on a company’s “presence” and whether it is “doing business” in a state has morphed into a conceptually similar doctrine: general jurisdiction (as distinguished by Glannon, Perlman, and Raven-Hansen). So although Shoe expanded the permissible scope of a court’s pj authority, some of the underlying principles and doctrines contained in Pennoyer remain good law.

II.DSpecific Jurisdiction looks at (1) minimum contacts and (2) reasonableness; If a claim arises out of a defendant’s contacts, a court will very likely conclude that personal jurisdiction is established, even if some of the reasonableness factors are not satisfied.

II.D.1World Wide Volkswagen 1980: (1) Test is not just if it is foreseeable that product would get to Oklahoma; more than foreseeability is needed. Defendant must be able to anticipate being sued in the forum because of some action it took. Purposeful availment is key; defendants did not reach out to Oklahoma, so no purposeful availment. (2) Reasonableness factors: Overall, does it make sense to bring the case here? Is plaintiff’s interest in adjudicating in the forum legitimate (especially important when plaintiff is injured) or somewhat attenuated? What is forum’s interest? Alternative forum’s interest? Inconvenience for defendant (travel, witnesses, relative wealth but was rejected in Burger King); Efficiency (the docket and if others will be encouraged to forum shop); List is clearly not finite as the cases invoke a variety of factors, i.e. Shared substantive policies (Kulko, in which court rejected jurisdiction b/c interest in family harmony)

II.D.2Burger King 1985: Keep in mind that more than a contract is needed for purposeful availment; look to surrounding negotiations and performance. After minimum contacts were established, Supreme Court put burden on defendant to show that forum was so gravely inconvenient that defendant was at a severe disadvantage