1331- Arising Under

RULES

1331-“arising under”
1332 -diversity jurisdiction
(c)(1)-corporations as citizens of a state
incorporated or principal place of business
1335-statutory interpleader
establishes jurisdiction based on minimal diversity so long as there is diversity between at least two adverse claimants and amount in controversy is greater than $500
(a) $500 amount in controversy
(1)minimal diversity requirement
(b) action can be brought even if titles or claims of different claimants do not have common origin, are not identical, but are adverse and independent of one another
1441- removal of civil actions
(a)-general removal-original jurisdiction
(b)-1332 removal
if any joined defendants are residents of state in which action brought, case is not removable under 1441
(c)- if there is a 1331 claim and state claim, a case may still be removed to federal court if one of the claims would have been able to be removed there; district court may choose to sever the state claim and remand it
1367 –supplemental jurisdiction
(a)-general supplemental-closely related claims to
in any action where district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related that they form part of the same case or controversy
this includes claims that involve joinder or intervention of additional parties
(b)-no supplemental for claims that have original jurisdiction solely based on 1332
applies to closely related claims by impleaded parties (14), joinder (19) (20), or parties joinder by 24
(c)-a few ways to deny supplemental over a claim under (a)
1391-venue
(a)(1) deals with civil actions brought in district courts
(2) shall be decided regardless of whether local or transitory in nature
(b)-general-where a civil action may be brought
(1)-judicial district of any defendant
(2)-district where large part of cause of action or property involved with cause of action is located OR
(3)- if we may not bring in (1) or (2), then any court that has personal jurisdiction over defendant
(c)-residency
(1)-party resides in any judicial district where domiciled
(3)-foreign defendants may be sued in any judicial district
(d)-corporations in states with multiple districts
any venue/district suffices if there is personal jurisdiction over corporation (most significant contacts of district=best)
(f)-foreign defendants
1397-venue for interpleader
actions of 1335 interpleaders may be brought in the judicial district in which one or more of the claimants reside
1404 –change of venue-based on convenience
(a)-general
action may be transferred to any venue in where it may have been brought or which parties have consented
NOTE: this is based on convenience of venue
(b)-action may be transferred by court’s discretion to any other division in same district upon consent or motion
NOTE: law of transferor forum applies (Van Dusen) (Ferens)
1406- cure or waiver of defects-remedies for improper venue
(a) court can dismiss or transfer case filed in wrong division or district court to any other court in which it could have been brought. NOTE: transfer under 1406= law of transferee forum applies
NOTE: this is for transfer to appropriate venue
(b) court’s exercise of jurisdiction is valid if party does not bring timely and sufficient objection to the venue (under 12(b)(3))?
(c) “district” entails territorial jurisdiction of each court (Guam, Mariana Islands, and Virgin islands included)
1441
1738-full faith and credit clause
2361- process and procedure
once a statutory impleader is commenced (1335), the court may restrict all claimants from starting or continuing any action that would affect the stake, and discharge the stakeholder from liability-wikipedia
service of process proper anywhere in US for interpleader-court may enjoin other proceedings and make appropriate orders to enforce its judgment
aka allows injunctive relief with respect to COLLATERAL actions (1335) involving money or intending to be filed. We are enjoining further prosecution of anything else that is going on.
This is because we don’t want other actions to come to judgment before 1335 actions because we would have to give them full faith and credit
Can also get injunctive under 2361 with a 1332 + 22 interpleader
4-service of process –(pair (k) with 2361 when 1335 case)
(a)-contents; amendments
(c)-service
(1)-summons + complaint
(2)-any person at least 18 years old and not a party may serve the summons and complaint
(d)-defendant may waive service of summons
(e)-serving an individual within a judicial district of the US-cant be minor, incompetent, or person who filed a er
(1)-follows state law for how to serve or
(2)
delivering copy of summons and of complaint to individual personally
leaving company at individual’s place of dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there
delivering copies to agents authorized to receive service of process
(f)-serving an individual in a foreign country
(g)-serving a minor or incompetent person
(h)-serving a corporation, partnership, or corporation
(j)-serving a foreign, state, or local government
(k)-territorial limits of effective service (basically properly serving process gains jurisdiction over a person once other jurisdictional requirements are met)
generally, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over D:
(a) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where district is located
(b) who is joined under 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of US and not more than 100 miles from where summons was issued
(c) when authorized by a federal statute
(m)-time limit for service
(n)-asserting jurisdiction over property or assets
12
see elaboration below
(a)-defendants must serve a responsive pleading within 21 days of being served summons and complaint
(b)-see 7 ways (below) to make a motion (defense) to the complaint/litigation against them. Must be made in responsive pleading if required and before pleading.(special appearance?)Otherwise can be asserted in pre-trial motion. If no responsive pleading is needed, then they may be asserted at trial. May be joined together
(g)- you can join any motions together. Motions MUST be made together at same time if possible unless 12(h)(3) exception
(h)- (1)- waiving and preserving certain defenses-(more elaboration below) defenses 2-5 are waived when omitting it from a motion (12(g)(2)) or failing to make it by motion/or include in responsive pleading
(2)-all other defenses (not 2-5?) may be raised in any pleading allowed under 7(a), motion under 12(c), or at trial
(3)-lack of subject-matter jurisdiction= court must dismiss action
13
(a)-compulsory counterclaim –
(1)related counterclaims must be stated at time of pleading
(a) claim must arise from same transaction or occurrence that is subject matter of opposing party’s claim
(b) cant add another party over whom court doesn’t have jurisdiction
(2) exceptions –don’t need to state claim if..
(a) when action was commenced, the claim was subject of another pleading action OR
(b) opposing party sued on claim by attachment so there is no personal jurisdiction over pleader on claim, and pleader asserts no counter claim
(b)-permissive counterclaim-
pleading may state as a counterclaim against opposing party that is not compulsory
(g)-crossclaim against a coparty-pleading may assert a crossclaim against a copraty so long as claim arises out of same subject as original action/counterclaim
D may also file 13(a) or (b) counterclaim against crossclaim to co-party
After filing 13(g), D may file other unrelated claims against co-party under 18
(h) additional parties brought in by 13(a) must satisfy rules of joinder under 19 and 20(a)..aka there must be relationship between all parties and cause of action
14-impleading-generally any claims from P to 3rd party D or counterclaims cross claims, etc. from 3rd party D must be related (arising out of same transaction)
(a)-when defendant may bring in 3rd party defendant-defendant must get court’s permission if impleading more than 14 days after serving its original answer
(b)-3rd party’s claims and defenses-NOT ON EXAM
NOTE: you must establish some kind of relationship between 3rd party P and 3rd party D in order to implead. Aka what is 3rd party P’s claim against 3rd party D
18-joinder of claims
(a)-general
a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party
(b)-joinder of contingent claims
a claim may be joined even if it is contingent on the disposition of the other
19- persons to be joined –as long as court has subject-matter jurisdiction over person-closest to mandatory joinder
(a)
(1)-required party
(a) in person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties OR
(b) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may
(1) impair person’s ability to protect the interest OR
(2) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of interest
(2)-court may order a required party be joined
(3)-if joined party objects to venue and joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party
NOTE: failure to join 19 party can be raised under r12(b)(7)
(b)
if party required to be joined cannot be joined, the court must take into account certain factors to decide whether or not this party should be dismissed
20-permissive joinder of parties-court may order to split parties into separate actions to avoid embarrassment, delay, expense, prejudice, etc.
(a)-there MUST be relationship between cause of action and all parties to satisfy rule 20(a)
(1)-plaintiffs
if they jointly assert right to relief arising out of the same transaction OR
any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action (same nucleus of fact)
(2)-defendants
if any right to relief is asserted against them jointly with respect to the same transaction AND
any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action
(3)-extent of relief-plaintiffs or defendants relief need not be concerned with the entire relief
22-interpleader
(a)
(1)by a plaintiff- persons with claims that may expose P to double or multiple liability may be joined as D’s and required to interplead. This is proper even though..
(a) claims of several claimants lack common origin and are independent or adverse rather than identical OR
(b) plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants
(2)by a defendant –D exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a crossclaim or counterclaim
(b)
doesn’t limit joinder of parties under 20
this remedy is to be seen as additional but not to supersede or limit remedy under 1335, 1397, and 2361. Actions under those 3 must be conducted under

Jurisdiction
Subject-Matter-Article III mandates there will be a supreme court and that we may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a case arising under federal law (1331-accepting invitation in constitution to address issues arising under constitution) or between diverse parties (1332). Any not enumerated must be brought in state court
Diversity-1332-we want to avoid bias by certain state courts when hearing cases involving non-residents so federal courts can hear cases in which there is complete diversity among the parties
Diversity-1335(a)(1)(interpleaders)-requirement of minimal diversity –for efficiencies sake, we want to litigate with parties at the same time and block against collateral actions
Citizenship

Individuals
Have domicile in the state
Domicile= has physical residence in a state and intent to remain there indefinitely
Corporations are considered to be “resident of a state” if
They are incorporated there OR
It is their principal place of business (WHAT CASE?)-
(can have citizenship in two places)

ANDAmount in Controversy
Above $75,000 in controversy for 1332
Above $500 in controversy for 1335
Exceptions(1332)

Limited exceptions specifically created by congress
Unincorporated associates (unions)= citizens of every state where has members
Statutory impleaders: minimal diversity requirement
Claims covered by supplemental jurisdiction, like those brought by third party defendants. In class actions, only citizenship of representatives need to be diverse

Federal Question-1331-federal court should be able to hear cases that involve the application of federal law
Well-Pleaded Complaint

The complaint must arise under federal law
Federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. Elements of the claim and nothing more
Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson
In a mixed complaint- (federal and state), federal question jurisdiction exists if federal claim is an essential element
NO anticipatory pleading
Federal law MUST give rise to cause of action
Jurisdiction must apply at the time of filing (face of complaint), can’t surround what the defendant MAY do-like a defense
Federal defenses and counter claims are not sufficient to have subject-matter jurisdiction or suffice for purposes of removal to federal court
Smith v. Kansas City

Supplemental

NOTE: if there is an independent basis for jurisdiction-aka diversity, DO NOT address supplemental jurisdiction
If we are bringing in a third party defendant under 14(a), and they are diverse then we are dealing 1332 not 1367
Federal rules of joinder are very generous because we want to get as much under one tent at one time
Expands subject matter jurisdiction beyond what it was
1367 (a)-Even if a counter claim (13(a)) is a state claim and it is brought in an action involving a federal claim (1331) then we may join the claims for efficiency under 1367(a)
Federal jurisdiction continues and also applies with respect to the joint claim
Also applies to 13(g) cross-claim
Note that without 1367….cross-claims NEED to have original basis for jx. Aka without 1367, if the two D’s aren’t diverse or the cross-claim isn’t a federal question, then there is no jx over the cross-claim whatsoever
Also applies to 14(a) impleading of third party defendant –so long as third-party claim closely related
Also applies to joinders-19,20,24
Also 13(a) and (b) counterclaims that don’t arise out of same transaction but are so closely related
1367(b) takes away basis of supplemental jurisdiction if it is solely based on 1332 if state claim is brought by plaintiffs!
(3) DOES NOT apply to clams by plaintiffs against people made defendants under 14(a)
3rd party defendant may file claim against plaintiff under 14(a) if only 1332
IF there is a case involving 1332 AND 1331-then 1367(b) does not preclude the possibility of bringing in the supplemental state claim
Strawberry v. Curties-required complete diversity

Personal-court will render a judgment binding on the plaintiff who chose to acquiesce to jurisdiction by filing. The defendant must be served proper service of process to begin looking at whether there is personal jurisdiction

You can serve jurisdiction over a
Resident
Present non-resident
Absent non-resident that has minimum contacts with the forum state-purposeful availment (test viewed in light of all attendant circumstances)
Traditional Basis
Consent

Implied
Hess v. Palowski
Court views that contractual forum selection clause is not unconstitutional if reasonable
Express
Carnival Cruise Lines
Arbitration clause to litigate in Florida
Whole case examines whether the chosen forum is reasonable
Not unusual/unreasonable to litigate in FL-the cause of action did not take place in home state of P and Carnival has an interest in keeping litigation in FL due to being incorporated in there and being a large corp. with many litigations
Exercise of jurisdiction can be EXPRESSLY consented to
Domicile
Domicile is like general jurisdiction which also applies to corporations (Rule 1332 says domicile of corporations = principal place of business or where incorporated). Permanent establishment + intent to stay
Mas v. Perry
Domicile= the place of “his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.”
Residency is not enough –need intention aspect
Milliken v. Meyer-domicile rule
Domicile alone is enough to exercise jurisdiction over someone
Physical Presence

Quasi in rem jurisdiction-still must be viewed under international shoe
Harris v. Balk-overturned below
Quasi in rem jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the property, not the person of balk
Applying the rule that the debt follows the debtor, wherever Harris is located is whether the debt of balk is located, and is owed to Epstein
Shaffer v. Heitner
We still have to look at due process when quasi in rem
No quasi in rem or in rem jurisdiction would be constitutional if the international shoe concepts were not applied-contacts must be sufficient to satisfy international shoe
Quasi in rem juris may be used only if the person whose property is attached and th state is sufficient to satisfy the min contacts test of international show
The test here does not deal with person jurisdiction, contacts between defendant and forum satisfies international shoe
Every state decides what constitutes sufficient contacts to exercise jurisdiction
Long arm statute
Shaffer v. heitner addresses physical presence of property of a person but says that is it not fair on it’s own (overturns Harris v. Balk)
McArthur
Physical presence, no matter how transient is sufficient
Physical presence is sufficient if non-resident is present without any affiliating circumstances
If he were absent we would need to look at international shoe
Burnham-upholds McArthur
Non-resident who is personally served with process while temporarily in that state is subject to jurisdiction by the state court in a suit unrelated to his/her activities in the state

Modern Basis
Minimum Contacts-Cases
International Shoe
Does the defendant have such minimum contacts so that would justify the exercise of jurisdiction in personam so as to no comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Continuous and systematic activity
Perkins v. Benguet-also deals with systematic and continuous (only general jurisdiction case; acts like a duck)
Hanson v. Denckla
Was the contact purposeful
The contacts were brought about for the unilateral activity of the party and was not found to be purposeful
Hawkins v. Mcgee
Although one contact, because D initiated contact it may be substantial enough to allow jurisdiction
In both international shoe and mcgee, the direction of solicitation was on the part of the defendant and it displays purposeful availment although the contact is very different
WWVW
We used to rely on foreseeability of being sued in the past cases, and this may have loomed much larger than courts intended
We will give the question of foreseeability to the plaintiff and although relevant, foreseeability BY ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH, there must be something else
The courts were trying too hard to find jurisdiction
No interest of state of Oklahoma to litigate against NY defendant and provide forum
Justice doesn’t demand exercise of jurisdiction
Asahi
Substantial amount of product of foreign defendant comes into CA
We would normally require much more of a contact
CA does not have an interest in hosting a case involving a Japanese v. Taiwanese company even though cause of action in CA
Minimum Contacts Test–International Shoe

1. Did the cause of action arise in the forum (contacts arise from cause of action)?
2.What is the quality nature of the contacts?
General substantial contacts-Milliken v. Meyer
Systematic and continuous-general jurisdiction-Perkins v. Benguet
Continuous but limited- Burger King
One substantial –Hawkins v. McGee

The Shoe Spectrum: General
Decreasing contacts Increasing contacts |
no casual or single, related continuous | substantial
contacts isolated act but limited | or pervasive
|_____|______|______|______|______|______|_____|
no no specific specific | general

jurisdiction jurisdiction jurisdiction jurisdiction