SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICITON
28 U.S.C. 1331 Federal Question Jurisdiction
-Text: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.”
-What it says:
-Application:
(1) Federal court has original jurisdiction over issues arising under the Constitution or US laws
- Usually a case brought under 1331 have a cause of action created by federal law. In some cases 1331 may be used when the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on the same construction of federal law. (Merrell Dow)
(2) The federal issue must be stated on the face of the claim, it cannot be a state claim based on federal statute (Merrell Dow)
(3) The federal question must appear as part of the plaintiff’s cause of action as set out in a well pleaded complaint. The claim does not raise a federal question if it only anticipates federal rules as a defense. (Louisville v. Motley)
-Cases:
Creation of a Federal Private Right of Action (Merrell Down)
(1) Plaintiffs are part of the class for whose special benefit the statute was passed.
(2) The congressional purpose was to create a private right of action.
(3) A federal cause of action would further the purpose of the legislative scheme.
(4) The cause of action is a subject traditionally related to federal law.
28 U.S.C. 1332 Diversity Jurisdiction
-Text: (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…as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different states
- (c ) 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…
-What it says:
-Application:
According to Strawbridge v. Curtis every plaintiff must be of diverse citizenship from every defendant (no plaintiff can be domiciled in the same state as any defendant.) If a citizen as joined as a defendant and is from the same state as the plaintiff, complete diversity is destroyed and 1332 is defeated.
(complete diversity is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional requirement).
Citizen: an individual is a citizen of a state only if he is both
(1) Citizen of US or an alien admitted for permanent residence AND
(2) domicilee in the state
(a) Resident within that state AND
(b) Intends to remain in the state indefinitely (intends to return whenever he or she is absent) i.e. voter registration, driver’s license, family, property, house, permanent job
- And individual remains a citizen in the state of his or her former domicile until he acquires a new domicile.
- Citizenship is determined at the time the suit is filed.
- American living abroad has no domicile within the use and cannot sue or be sued in federal court on diversity J.
Amount in Question:
There there must be a good faith allegation that damages exceed $75,000.
-Policy: Protects out of state litigants from local prejudices, provides a nationwide system of courts in which important commercial disputes could be adjudicated and a uniform system of law applied
-Cases:
1330
-What it says: gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims against foreign nation as long as the nation is not immune. Explains how the foreign nation is not immune.
28 U.S.C. 1367—Supplemental Jurisdiction
-Text
-What it says: (a) When the court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, the court may have supplemental jurisdiction over any claims with no independent basis for jurisdiction as long as they are part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States.
-This includes additional claims asserted by the plaintiff but also those asserted by other parties as well, such as cross claims and counter claims. (Condified UMW v. Gibbs)
-(b) When the court has original jurisdiction under 1332 (diversity), supplemental jurisdiction is not permitted for claims made by plaintiffs against persons made parties under 14 (impleader),19 (compulsory joinder) ,20 (permissive joinder) or 24 (intervention); claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19; and claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24.
-Restricts cross-claims not counter-claims
-Application: Under 1367 (a) the court can obtain subject matter jurisdiction over a claim with no independent basis for jurisdiction when the claim is so related as to be considered part of the same case or controversy. Here, supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate because the claims arose out of the same controversy when …[ insert facts]. Under 1367 (b) the court may bar supplemental jurisdiction if the original plaintiff brings in another party using rule 14, 19,20 or 24. Here rule [#] was used so….
-Policy: Broad supplemental jurisdiction in federal question cases facilities the core business of the federal courts of adjudicating these cases efficiently and effectively. Narrower supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases conserves the resources of the federal courts and encourages litigants to take disputes to state court.
-Cases:UMWA v. Gibbs held that the claims must derive from the common nucleus of operative fact. Owen Equipment v. Kroger
Article III of the United States Constitution
-What it says: (§1)Gives congress the power to create federal courts.
- (§2) Federal courts have the power to hear cases arising under the constitution, laws and treaties of the US, cases affecting ambassidors, public ministers, consols, admirality and maritime cases, controversies in which the US is a party, controversies between states, controversies between a state and a citizen of another state, controversies between persons of different states and controversies where foreign states, citizens or subjects are parties. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls and when the US is a party. For all of the other categories, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction.
- Provides right to trial by jury (except impeachment)
VENUE
When you want to transfer from federal court to federal court based on convenience…
28 U.S.C. 1404 (a)—Change of Venue
-Text: (a) “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
-What it says: (a) A district court may transfer a civil action to any other district where it may have been originally filed. [transfer from one federal district court to another federal district court]
-Application: [Plaintiff/ defendant] may transfer the case to [location] if the case could have been filed there originally. Under 28 U.S.C. 1404 (a) the law of the transferor forum will apply. Under 28 U.S.C. 1391 transfer to [location] is possible because …
-Cases: Ferens v. John Deere held that following a transfer under 1404(a), the transferee court must follow the laws of the transferor forum regardless if the defendant or the plaintiff makes the motion. Van Dusen
What to do when the case is brought in an improper venue…
28 U.S.C. 1406—Cure or Waiver of Defects (Transfor)
-Text: (a) “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
-What it says: 28 U.S.C. 1406 (a) provides for dismissal or transfer to the right venue when the venue does not meet the qualifications of 1391. The two remedies under 1406 are dismissal and transfer. The law of the transferor forum DOES NOT apply.
-Application: Follows a 12(b)(3) motion for improper venue. If venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 defendants can transfer the case to any district where the case could have originally been brought. The law of the transferor forum does not apply. The defendants can transfer to [location] because the case could have originally been filed there under 1391…
-Cases:
Removal from state court to federal court
28 U.S.C. 1441 (a) removal
-Text: (a) “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the U.S. have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants , to the district court of the U.S. for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under [1331] shall be removeable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removeableonly if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
-What it says: If the plaintiff files in state court, the defendant may remove the action from state court into federal court as long as the case could have been originally filed in federal court. If there is shared citizenship between any defendant and any plaintiff there is no diversity.
-Application: The defendants can remove the case to the U.S. District Court in [location] under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) because the case could have been originally filed in federal court under [1331/
[if 1332] However, if the federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of parties, then 1441 (b) provides that an action is removable only if none of the parties are citizens of the state in which the action is brought. Here, [plaintiff/ defednat] is a citizen of [state] so the action is not removeable.
Here, [1331/1332] permits the federal court to exercise jurisdiction because there is [federal question/ complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000].
-Cases:
Forum Non Convenience
-Common law rule that permits a motion to dismiss on grounds of non-convenience when there is a better forum elsewhere.
-Applies when there is proper territorial jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and venue
-Cases: Piper Aircraft v. Reyno
When a venue is proper…
28 U.S.C. 1391 Venue
-Text:
- (a) applies to diversity, (b) applies to federal question
- (a)(1) and (b)(1) venue is available where a defendant resides as long as the defendants are from the same state
- (a)(2) and (b)(2) venue is available in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events occurred or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.
- Under (a) (2) and (b)(2) venue can be available in more than one location because a claim can arise in more than one district.
- (a)(3) and (b)(3) is available in any district where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
- This is a fall back provision available only when (1) and (2) are not met
- Subsections (a) and (b) operate identically as long as where a defendant is “subject to personal jurisdiction” and “may be found” mean the same thing.
- (c )A defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. (do minimum contacts)
- (d) An alien may be sued in any district (acquire J first)
- Venue requirements to not apply to cases removed from state court (1441(a))
- What it says: Venue is proper if it is the place of resident of the defendant, the location where a substantial amount of the events giving rise to the claim arise, a place you can find any defendant residing as long as there is no district where the action may be brought otherwise. (c ) A defendant corporation resides where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.
- Application: Under 28 U.S.C. 1441 [(a)/(b)] venue is proper because…
- Policy: “The purpose of statutorily specified venue is to product the defendant against the risk that a plaintiff will select unfair or inconvenient place of trial” (449)
- Cases:
S.C. 1338 (a) Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks and unfair competition
- Text:
- What it says: District courts have original jurisdiction over disputes related to patents, planet variety production, copyrights and trademarks. District courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent, plant variety protection and copyrights.
- Application: Here, the case could have been brought in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1338 (a) because the dispute is over trademarks.
- Here, the case must be filed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1338 because the dispute is over [patents/ plant variety protection/ copyrights].
- Cases: Burger King (trademark infringement)
28 U.S.C. 1603 Defines a Foreign States
28 U.S.C. §2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
- Text: (a)The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b)Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c)Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section1291of this title.
28 U.S.C. 2201 Creation of Remedy
- Text:
- What it means: Proivdes the remedy of a declaratory judgment. How a plaintiff requests a declaration of rights from the federal courts in case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction. A plaintiff’s well pleaded declaratory judgment complaint will often assert rights based on federal law, whereas that same assertion of federal rights would have appeared as federal defenses in the answer had plaintiff waited to be made a defendant in a coercive suit for damages or an injuction.
PERSONAL/ TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
In PersonumJurisdiciton = The ability of a court to exercise power over a defendant or their property.
To have personal jurisdiction, service of summons must be satisfied, thus before personal jurisdiction there must be
(1) Notice to the defendant (best practical means available- Mullane)
(2) A constitutionally sufficient relationship—establish constitutionality with min. contacts.
When establishing jurisdiction, FRPC 4(K)(1)(a)says that the federal court must apply the state long arm statute. Statutory authorizations for exercise of jurisdiction where there is no service of process allowed for in the state. [Analyze]. Must ask whether statue allows for exercise of jurisdiction. California has a long arm statute that allows full service consistent with the constitution.
Challenge to In Personam Jurisdiction
- With a 12(b)(2) motion or answer the defendants may challenge personal jurisdiction by setting forth reasons why they lacked jurisdiction. [Ex:
-Exercise
- Traditionally personal jurisdiction is established by citizenship, consent, property in the state or personal service in the state.
- Implied Consent—By undertaking this course of activity you have implied a consent to the exercise of jurisdiction i.e. filing an answer without a 12 (b)(2) motion.
- Express consent—Created by contract such as in a forum selection clause, you can expressly consent to J by choosing a forum.
To determine if the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in [location], the court will look to whether the defendant has a traditional basis for jurisdiction due to citizenship, consent, property in the state or personal service in the state.
Minimum Contacts Test
If the contacts are so pervasive that it could be said that they are acting as a resident of the state, the Benguet v. Perkins “quacks like a duck” test applies and the court can establish general jurisdiction over the defendant.
Alternatively, International Shoe v. Washington extends the application of personal jurisdiction, via personal contacts test, to absent non-residents when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state justify establishing jurisdiction with respect to the notions of fair play and substantial justice.
[Analyze]: To establish in personam jurisdiction through minimum contacts you need
(a) What is the contact? Characterized as continuous and systematic (evidence of purposeful conduct- McGee) or isolated and accidental?
- Qualitative test (not quantity)
(b) Purposeful availment to the “privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” (Hanson v. Denkla) In Hanson v. Denkla, the court found that the Delaware trust company did not have minimum contacts with Florida because it did not intentionally direct conduct towards Florida.
(c ) “Stream of Commerce” –Asahi court was split on whether placing an item in the stream of commerce amounted to purposeful availment. The defendant must perform an act at which he must purposefully directs the product towards the forum state’s market, BUT mere awareness that the product will be sold in the forum state is not sufficient.
(d) Foreseeability (alone, insufficient World Wide Volkswagon)
(e) Fairness: State’s interest in providing a forum for its citizens, plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief, burden on the defendant of litigating in a foreign state, risk of inconsistent judgments, relative positions of the parties. (McGee v. International Life) Interstate judicial interest in efficient resolution and substantive social policy considerations. In Helicol the court was unwilling to exercise personal jurisdicition over an international
Service of Process 4(K)(1); §2361- In personam jurisdiction
- Plaintiff must arrange to have someone deliver to the defendant process:
- A summons (formal court notice of a suit and time for response); and
- A copy of the complaint
- Plaintiff must serve process within 120 days of filing the complaint or else the case will be dismissed without prejudice (unless plaintiff shows good cause for the delay)
- Process may be served by any nonparty who is at least 18 years old and may take the form of:
- Personal service
- Papers are given to defendant personally anywhere you find the defendant in the forum state (unless defendant is present only to be a witness or party in another civil case)
- Substituted Service
- Process can be left with someone other than the defendant if:
- It is the defendant’s usual abode;
- The person being left with process is of suitable age and discretion; and
- The person being left with process resides there
- Process can be delivered to defendant’s agent authorized to receive service (e.g., a corporation’s registered agent or any officer) or a state officer appointed by operation of law (nonresident motorist, etc.).
- Waiver by Mail
- Process can be mailed to the defendant by first class mail, postage prepaid, as long as:
- Defendant returns the waiver form waiving formal service within 30 days
- If he does not return the waiver form, he must be served personally or by substituted service at his cost)
- Process can be delivered to a defendant in another state as long as state law allows for it (with a long-arm statute, for example).
- Exceptions:
- Federal court can serve a defendant outside the forum state regardless of state law under the Bulge rule and/or statutory interpleader (see below)
- These rules apply to formal service of process, by which a defendant is brought before the jurisdiction of the court. For subsequent papers (e.g., answer, other pleadings, motions, discovery requests and responses) can be served by delivering or mailing the document to the party’s attorney (or pro se party). If mailed, three additional days are given for the required response time
Pleadings: statement of the parties’ positions on the factual and legal issues in dispute