Civ Pro Essay

Question 1

SMJ Issue

Answer 1

The issue is whether federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Question 2

SMJ Rule

Answer 2

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A federal court has original jurisdiction over a case due to SMJ if there is

1) diversity jurisdiction or

2) federal question jurisidiction.

Question 3

DJ - Rule

Answer 3

Federal courts have diversity jurisidiction if:
1) there is complete diversity of citizenship of the parties; and
2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Question 4

DJ - First..

Answer 4

First, there must be complete diversity between the parties which means no P is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.

Question 5

DJ - citizenship individuals

Answer 5

An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled at the time the action is commenced.

Question 6

DJ domicile rule

Answer 6

An individual is domiciled in the state in which he last had both

1) physical presence; and

2) intent to remain for an indefinite period.

Question 7

DJ - physical presence

Answer 7

Any amount of time of physical presence suffices.

Question 8

DJ - intent to remain indefinitely rule

Answer 8

An individual intends to remain for an indefinite period of time in a state if she has no intent to leave at a definite time or on the occurrence of a definite event.

Question 9

DJ - intent to remain indefinitely - subjective intent

Answer 9

An individual’s subjective intent is a strong factor in determining an individual’s intent to remain for an indefinite period of time. Courts may also consider evidence about the party’s practicfal affairs to establish intent.

Question 10

DJ - intent to remain indefinitely - case illustration - P had intent to remain indefinitely

Answer 10

In Gordon v. Steele, P was a citizen of PA when she was treated by Ds which resulted in her filing a negligence action after she moved to ID for college. P stated she did not intend to return to PA. The court held she was domiciled in ID because she stated she had no present intent to leave ID. The court considered evidence of her practical affairs including that she leased an apt in ID and had obtained insurance there as support of her intent to remain indefinitely.

Question 11

DJ - intent to remain indefinitely - case illustration - P did not have intent to remain indefinitely

Answer 11

In Mas v. Perry, P was attending college and working in the state of LA when she filed a claim against D. She stated she did not intend to remain in LA. The court held that she was still domiciled in MI, the state she lived in before attending college because it was the last place she had been physically present with intent to remain for an indefinite period of time.

Question 12

DJ - citizenship individual - application/conclusion

Answer 12

Here, the court will likely find [P][D] is a citizen of [state]. First, she had physical presence in [state] because [facts]. Second, like in [Gordon][Mas], she [did not have][had] intent to remain indefinitely because [facts].

Question 13

DJ - citizenship - corp

Answer 13

A corporation is a citizen of:

1) its state of incorporation; and
2) the state in which it has its principal place of business.

Question 14

DJ - citizenship - corp - principal place of business rule

Answer 14

A corporation’s principal place of business is the place where the company’s high level officers direct, control, coordinate the company’s activities (its “nerve center”). This is generally the state where company headquarters are located.

Question 15

DJ - citizenship- corp - headquarters moved

Answer 15

A corporation moving its headquarters in order to become (or defeat) diversity is immaterial as long as the citizenship was established at the time the case commenced.

Question 16

DJ - citizenship - corporation - application/conclusion

Answer 16

Here, [P][D] is a citizen of [state] and [state]. [P][D] is a citizen of [state] because the facts state it is incorporated there.

[P][D] is a citizen of [state] because [facts] indicate [state] is its nerve center.

Question 17

DJ - citizenship - corporation - policy

Answer 17

In Hertz, the Supreme Court stated that courts benefit from straightforward rules such as this, under which they can readily assure themselves of their power to hear a case. Simple rules also promote greater predictability and create administrative simplicity.

Question 18

DJ - citizenship - other entities

Answer 18

A [partnership][LLC][association] is a citizen of each state in which its members are a citizen.

Question 19

DJ - citizenship - other entities - limited partners

Answer 19

The citizenship of a partnership includes the states in which the limited partners are citizens.

Question 20

DJ - citizenship - other entities - analysis

Answer 20

Analyze using Citizenship - individual (for each member)

Question 21

DJ - complete diversity conclusion

Answer 21

Here, there is [not] complete diversity because [at least one D is a citizen of the same state as one P][no D is a citizen of the same state as any P]. P’s are citizens of [states] and Ds are citizens of [states.

Question 22

DJ - remedy if no complete diversity

Answer 22

If the non-diverse D is removed from the case, there would be diversity jurisdiction.

Question 23

DJ - Amount in controversy - issue

Answer 23

Second, the amount in controversy must be greater than $75k.

Question 24

DJ - Amount in controversy - rule

Answer 24

If P’s claim is for more than $75k, it will generally be accepted as satisfying the amount in controversy as long as:

1) it appears to be in good faith; and

2) it does not appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less.

Question 25

DJ - Amount in controvery - legal certainty

Answer 25

The judge considers the injury P has alleged, inluding information beyond those alleged in the complaint, and asks if it is possible that a reasonable jury could aware more than $75k for those injuries. If no, then the judge will find that it appears to a legal certainty the claim is really for less.

Question 26

DJ -Amount in controvery - case illustration - legal certainty of claim

Answer 26

In Diefenthal v. C.A.B., Ps alleged breach of contract and humiliation because they were denied a seat in the first class smoking section of an airplane after the airline confirmed their request. P’s claimed flight attendant dealt with them brusquely. After amending complaint, P’s alleged flight attendant intentionally and maliciously humiliated them. The court dismissed the case for failure to satisfy amount in controversy because the evidence failed to show Ps had suffered more than trivial loss and to a legal certainty, the conduct alleged would not justify a damage claim of the required amount.

Question 27

DJ - Amount in controvery - legal certainty - analysis/conclusion

Answer 27

Here, P’s complant alleges the amount in controversy is [$$] but like in Diefenthal, the complaint fails to allege that P suffered more than a trivial loss because [facts]. Thus, the court will likely find that there is legal certainty the claim is really for less.

Question 28

DJ - Amount in controvery - legal remedy limits

Answer 28

If the applicable legal remedy limits damages to an amount of $75k or less, the amount in controversy will not be satisfied even if P’s complaint alleges higher damages.

Here, [x legal remedy] limits damages to [$$], which is less than the required amount in controversy.

Thus, the amount in controversy is not satisfied.

Question 29

DJ - Amount in controversy - P has multiple claims against D

Answer 29

A single P can aggregate any separate claims against a single D.

Here, P can aggregate the [$ claim] and the [$ claim] against D to determine the amount in controversy.

Since the total is greater than $75k, the amount in controversy requirement will be satisfied.

Alternative: Even though the claims can be aggregated, the amount in controvery is not satisfied because the total is $75k or less.

Question 30

DJ - Amount in controversy - co-plaintiffs

Answer 30

Co-plaintiffs generally cannot aggregate separate claims against a defendant.

Here, [P1] and [P2} cannot combine their claims against D to determine if the amount in controvery is satisfied.

Since neither P has a claim in excess of $75k against D, federal courts do not have diversity jurisdiction over either claim.

Question 31

DJ - Amount in controversy - co-plaintiffs - exception

Answer 31

A co-plaintiff with a claim against D can tag-along with another plaintiff who does satisfy the amount in controversy if their claims arise from the same facts.

Here, [P1] and [P2] can aggregate their claims because the claims arise from the same facts.

Question 32

DJ - Amount in controversy - multiple defendants

Answer 32

A plaintiff cannot aggregate claims against multiple defendants.

Here, P cannot add toether the [$ claim] against D1 and the [$ claim] against D2.

Question 33

DJ - Amount in controversy - common undivided interests

Answer 33

If multiple plaintiffs who sue a defendant have an undivided interest in the claim, the amount in controversy element is satisfied if the undivided interest exceeds $75k.

Here, P1 and P2 have undivided interest in [claim] because [facts].

Thus, the amount in controversy is satisfied because the undivided interest is [$].

Question 34

DJ - Amount in contorversy - joint liability

Answer 34

Because P sued Ds for the same injury and each D could be liable for the full amount, the amount in controversy is satisfied against all Ds because the amount sought in total is [$].

Question 35

DJ - Amount in Controversy - counterclaims

Answer 35

Counterclaims by D cannot be aggregated wth P’s claim to meet the amount requirement.

Question 36

DJ - Conclusion

Answer 36

Because there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75k, the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the case.

Question 37

DJ - waiver by P or D

Answer 37

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Thus, [D and P’s] willingness to waive SMJ does not change the outcome.

Question 38

FQJ - rule

Answer 38

Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction if a question involving federal law arises from the face of the complaint (the well-pleaded complaint rule).

Question 39

FQJ - well pleaded complaint rule

Answer 39

The well-pleaded complaint rule is satisfied when either:

1) Fedral law creates the cause of action (Holmes test); or

2) Ps right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law (Grable test).

Question 40

FQJ - federal law raised in defense

Answer 40

P including in his complain t that he anticipates D will raise an issue of [x] federal law does not satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule because the issue of federal law is not required for P to win his claim.

Question 41

FQJ - D’s counterclaim raised federal law

Answer 41

D’s counterclaim which alleges a cause of action under [x] federal law does not satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule because the issue of federal law appears as part of D’s answer, not the complaint.

Question 42

FQJ - Holmes test - analysis

Answer 42

Here, a federal law did [not] create the cause of action because [facts].

Question 43

FQJ - Grable test - rule

Answer 43

The Grable test is satisfied if the federal issue is:

1) necessarily raised;

2) actually disputed;

3) substantial; and

4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Question 44

FQJ - Grable test - necessarily raised

Answer 44

First, [x federal law] was necessarily raised because [facts].

Question 45

FQJ - Grable test - actually disputed

Answer 45

Second, the federal law is actually disputed because [facts].

Question 46

FQJ - Grable test- substantial

Answer 46

Third, a federal issue is substantial when resolution of the issue will have an impact on cases other than P’s case.

Here, [x federal law] is likely [not] substantial because [facts] mean resolution woud impact [only the plaintiff][other cases].

Question 47

FQJ - Grable test - federal/state balance

Answer 47

The federal/state balance is disrupted when hearing the case would cause a flood of state causes to enter federal courts.

Where the federal court hearing the case will promote unity of interpretation of federal law - the balance is likely not be disrupted.

Here, the claim is [not] capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal/state balance because [facts].

Question 48

FQJ - conclusion

Answer 48

Thus, the federal court will [not] have federal question jurisdiction.

Question 49

NOR - Issue

Answer 49

The issue is whether D can remove the claim from state court to federal court.

Question 50

NOR - rule

Answer 50

D can remove a claim brought in state court to the federal district court that covers the state in which P brought the state action if:

1) P could have filed the claim in federal court because the federal court has SMJ;

2) All Ds join in or consent to the removal; and

3) D removes the case within 30 days of receipt of complaint or amended complaint that creates SMJ.

Question 51

NOR - conclusion - DJ

Answer 51

Here, D can[not] remove based on diversity jurisdiction because [facts].

Question 52

NOR - conclusion - FQJ

Answer 52

Here, D can[not] remove based on federal question jurisdiction because [facts].

Question 53

NOR - procedural - timing issues

Answer 53

Here, D’s NOR was [not] timely because [facts].

Question 54

NOR - procedural - timing issues policy

Answer 54

The short 30-day window promotes efficiency because it resolves quickly which court will hear the case so parties do not have to worry about being bounced to another court.

Question 55

NOR - procedural - amended complaint creates SMJ

Answer 55

Here, D’s NOR was timely because the initial complaint was not removable, but P amending to [add facts] created DJ or SMJ which gave D 30 days after the amended complaint to file a NOR.

Question 56

NOR - procedural - amended complaint DJ or SMJ existed in initial complaint

Answer 56

Even though P amended the complaint which created DJ or FQJ. D does not get 30 days after the amended complaint to remove because the initial complete was removable under DJ or FQJ.

Question 57

NOR - procedural - forum defendant rule

Answer 57

When removal is based on DJ., the forum defendant rule prohibits removal of the case if any D is a citizen of the state in which P filed the action.

Here, D is a citizen of [state] where D filed the claim, so the case cannot be removed to federal court.

Question 58

NOR - procedural forum defendant rule policy

Answer 58

This outcome is consistent with the reasoning behind DJ because there is no risk of bias or prejudice against an out-of-state defendant since D is a citizen of the forum state.

Question 59

NOR - procedural - Not all Ds consented

Answer 59

Here, even though the federal court has DJ or FQJ, the case cannot be removed to federal court because not all Ds consented.

Question 60

NOR - procedural - automatic

Answer 60

Removal to federal court is automatic when D files NOR.

Question 61

NOR - procedural - impact on lower courts

Answer 61

State court loses all power to proceed with the case, but all orders entered by the state remain in effect until altered by district court.;

Here, [orders] will remain in effect unless the district court alters them.

Question 62

MTR - rule

Answer 62

After NOR, P may file a MTR in federal court if he wants to argue there is a defect in Ds removal to federal court.

A MTR on basis of lack of SMJ can be filed at anytime after removal to federal court.

A MTR on basis of a procedural defect must be filed within 30 days after the NOR.

Question 63

MTR - analysis/conclusion

Answer 63

Here, Ps MTR was [not] timely because [facts].

Question 64

NOR - avoiding - issue

Answer 64

The issue is whether P can structure his case to prevent removed to federal court.

Question 65

NOR - avoiding - options for DJ

Answer 65

1) join a non-diverse defendant;

2) seek $75k or less;

3) sue in D’s state of citizenship;

4) change citizenship before filing

Question 66

NOR - avoiding - options for FQJ

Answer 66

Raise only state law claims