Civil Procedure Flashcards
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
— subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s power over the subject matter of the lawsuit.
In federal court, subject matter jurisdiction can be based on:
(1) a federal question properly pleaded in the complaint; or
(2) diversity of citizenship.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Exists when the claim arises under
(a) federal law,
(b) the U.S. Constitution, OR
(c) U.S. treaty.
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule
— the federal question must be integral (i.e., part and parcel) to plaintiff’s cause of action, as revealed by plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint (i.e., what one would naturally and appropriately plead in a complaint).
◦ Not Sufficient
▪ Anticipatory Defense — it does not suffice for federal question jurisdiction if the plaintiff anticipates a defense based on a federal statute.
▪ Artful Pleadings — federal questions not integral to the claim will not suffice.
▪ State Laws Incorporating Federal Standards — a state statute that has incorporated a federal standard (e.g., state tort laws) arises under state law, not federal law.
Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
— for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, plaintiff must (1) show complete diversity and (2) satisfy the amount in controversy (AIC) requirement.
Diversity Determined at Commencement of the Action
Domicile of Individuals
— citizenship of natural persons is based on domicile, not residence. A person’s domicile is where she has her true, fixed, and permanent home. You must have:
(1) presence; and
(2) intent to remain for the indefinite future.
Domicile of Corporations
— a corporation is a citizen of the state where it is (1) incorporated and of the state where it has its (2) principal place of business . Corporations may have more than one citizenship.
• Principal Place of Business = Nerve Center — a corporation’s principal place of business is presumed to be the place of the corporation’s “nerve center” from where its officers conduct the corporation’s important business.
Domicile of Unincorporated Associations
— you must consider the citizenship (i.e., domicile) of all individual members. Obviously, this means it is more difficult for unincorporated associations (e.g., partnerships or LLCs) to sue or be sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
Diversity Jurisdiction of a Large Class Action
– exists when:
1) Amount in controversy exceeds $5 million;
2) At least 100 class members; AND
3) Minimal diversity is present – if any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.
Limits on Class Action Diversity Jurisdiction
− Court MAY decline to exercise jurisdiction when non-diverse members are greater than 1/3 and less than 2/3 of the total class.
− Court MUST decline to exercise jurisdiction when non-diverse members are greater than 2/3 of the total class.
Class Action Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply
a) If the primary D’s are States, State officials, or other govt. entities that the court is foreclosed from ordering relief;
b) If less than 100 class members; OR
c) In class actions involving securities or corporate fiduciary claims.
Amount in Controversy (AIC)
> $75,000 — to meet the AIC requirement, plaintiff must have a good faith claim exceeding $75K exclusive of interests and costs.
◦ Good Faith Requirement — the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction does not have to prove that the amount exceeds $75,000, but must only show that there is some possibility of recovering this amount.
AIC Aggregation
— in certain situations, a plaintiff may add claims together to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
▪ Multiple Plaintiffs = No — each plaintiff must have claims totalling more than $75K.
• Exception = Joint Interest — e.g., A and B jointly own Blackacre and the defendant trespasses. A and B each claim $40K in damages.
▪ Single Defendant = Yes — a plaintiff who has multiple claims against one defendant may aggregate the claims to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
▪ Multiple Defendants = No — a plaintiff may not aggregate claims against multiple defendants. The amount in controversy requirement must be met against each defendant individually.
Domestic Relations Exception
even if there is diversity jurisdiction, a federal court will not hear cases involving divorce, alimony, child custody, or probate of estate.
◦ Divorce
◦ Alimony
◦ Child Custody; OR
◦ Probate of Estate
Equitable Relief
— equitable relief, such as an injunction, may be valued by either the
(1) value of the harm to plaintiff; or
(2) cost of compliance for defendant.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
- Effect — supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear claims (not cases) over which it does not have an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., state law claims). Supplemental jurisdiction gets non-federal and non-diversity claims into federal court.
- Test = “Common Nucleus of Operative Fact” — the claim must share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the claim that initially satisfied federal subject matter jurisdiction and got the case into federal court.
▪ Same Transaction or Occurrence = YES — the test is always satisfied if the additional claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
- Test = “Common Nucleus of Operative Fact” — the claim must share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the claim that initially satisfied federal subject matter jurisdiction and got the case into federal court.
When may a federal court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction?
a) State Law Claim Predominates;
b) Complex Claim of State Law;
c) Original Claim Dismissed; OR
d) Other Compelling Reasons or Exceptional Circumstances.
Abstention Doctrine
Federal courts MAY abstain from hearing a case when it would intrude upon the powers of another court. Additionally, a court may stay a case arising from ambiguous state law to await the outcome of a pending state court case.
4 Abstention Doctrines
Pullman Doctrine- cases that arise from unsettled areas of state law.
Younger Doctrine- cases that would interfere with state judicial proceedings.
Colorado River Doctrine- when there are parallel state and federal litigations pending.
Burford Doctrine- only appropriate if federal adjudication would interfere with a state’s administration of a complex regulatory scheme.
In Personam
— jurisdiction based on power over the particular defendant (e.g., person or entity). More specifically, a court’s power to bring a person or entity into its adjudicative process.
In Rem
— jurisdiction based on power over a piece of property within the forum state, i.e., a court’s power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property. The presence of property in the forum state is constitutionally sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction over that property.
Quasi-In-Rem
— jurisdiction not based on power over a person but based on that person’s interest in property (e.g., land, securities, bank account, automobile, etc.) located within the court’s jurisdiction. Note that this type of jurisdiction has nothing to do with the property. When it is not possible to obtain in personam jurisdiction, seek quasi-in-rem jurisdiction—often referred to as “second best” because recovery by the plaintiff is limited to the value of the property (i.e., any judgment cannot be enforced against any other property belonging to defendant).
Three questions for personal jurisdiction:
- Is there a traditional basis of jurisdiction? (If so, then the court HAS personal jurisdiction.)
- Is jurisdiction based on some long-arm statute?
- If the answer to (2) is yes, is the application of the long-arm statute constitutional?
What are the traditional basis of personal jurisdiction?
(1) Physical Presence at Time of Personal Service;
(2) Domicile; and
(3) Consent.
Long Arm Jurisdiction
To assert PJ over a non- resident:
1) The State must have a Long-Arm Statute; AND
2) Comply with Constitutional Due Process Requirements – D has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.