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.
Minimum Contacts Test
“Defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
(1) Minimum Contacts – there must be a relevant connection between the defendant and the forum state; AND
(2) Foreseeability – it must have been foreseeable that the defendant would be sued in the forum state.
Purposeful Availment
The defendant must have voluntarily reached out to the state (i.e. “It is essential that in each case there be some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus involving the benefit and protections of its laws.”).
Accidental contacts are not sufficient for purposeful availment.
Fair Play & Substantial Justice
• Historically = Systematic & Continuous Contacts — the standard for general personal jurisdiction used to be systematic and continuous contacts in the forum.
• Modernly = Defendant Feels at Home — more recently, SCOTUS has tightened this standard, holding that general personal jurisdiction can only exist if the defendant feels at home in the forum state.
Reasonableness of Jurisdiction
— consider the following three issues when considering whether a defendant is “at home” in the forum state:
▪ Burden on Defendant — can defendant show that the forum is “so gravely inconvenient” that she will be at a severe disadvantage in litigation?
▪ Plaintiff’s Interest in Obtaining Relief — will the plaintiff be able to obtain relief in another forum?
▪ Interest of the Forum State — does the forum state have an interest in providing a forum for its residents and protecting their health and safety?
Service of Process & Notice Timing
Summons & Complaint MUST be served on D within 90-days after filed with the court.
− Otherwise, the court must→
(a) dismiss the action without prejudice against that D; OR
(b) order that service be made within a specified period of time.
Service may be made by any person who is:
(1) at least 18 years old, AND
(2) not a party to the action.
Method of Service
The method of service must be consistent with Due Process→
1) reasonably calculated,
2) to make the parties aware of the action,
3) and give them an opportunity to object.
Individual→may be served:
(a) personally;
(b) via someone of suitable age and discretion at the individual’s current dwelling or usual place of abode;
(c) via an agent (by appointment or by law); OR
(d) in accordance with state law of the forum state or where service is made.
Corporation, Partnership, or Association → may be served:
(a) in accordance with state law of the forum state or where service is made; OR
(b) to an officer or managing/general/authorized agent.
Foreign Defendant→may be served
via any manner NOT prohibited by international agreement.
Waiver By Mail
— the defendant waives her right to formal service of process if notice is mailed first class with prepaid postage to the defendant and the defendant returns waiver within 30 days.
▪ More Time to Answer — the defendant is given more time to answer the complaint (i.e., 60 days instead of 21 days).
Proper Venue
Venue is Proper in any district where:
a) any defendant resides (if all defendants are residents of the forum state);
b) a substantial portion of the claim occurred;
c) a substantial portion of the property is located; OR
d) if none of the above, then where any defendant is subject to the court’s PJ.
*Proper venue is determined at the time the action was filed.
Transfer of Venue
If venue was proper when the case was filed, the court MAY transfer it if:
1) Needed for the convenience of the witnesses or in the interests of justice; AND
2) The case could have initially been brought in the receiving court (court has PJ and SMJ).
If venue was improper when the case was filed, the court MUST either:
a) Dismiss the case; OR
b) Transfer the case to a proper court if the interests of justice require it.
When venue is transferred, what choice of law provisions will apply?
the choice of law provisions of the transferor court will apply. Change of court, not a change of law.
Forum Selection Clause
Courts will enforce a forum- selection clause UNLESS special factors are present (i.e. significant/unusual hardship, inequality of bargaining power).
State Law in Federal Court
Erie Doctrine – Applies when a federal case is brought under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
− Federal courts will apply federal procedural law, BUT must apply the substantive law of the forum state in which it sits.
Procedural Law
= civil procedure rules, statute of limitations (except in limited circumstances), burden of proof, and rebuttable presumptions.
Substantive Law
= choice of law rules, statute of frauds, irrebuttable presumptions, statute of limitations that condition a substantive right or have a borrowing statute, preclusion law.
When Substantive Federal Law Applies
Federal law will apply for matters governed by the U.S. Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and valid federal law that preempts state law under the Supremacy Clause.
What is the three-part balancing test a court will use if it is unclear whether the state law is substantive or procedural?
State Law Outcome Determinative? – if the state law substantially determines the outcome of the litigation, it is substantive law and must be applied by a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction.
Balance State Interest v. Federal Interest in Application of Particular Rule – does either court system (i.e. federal or state) have a strong interest that its rule be applied?
Avoid Forum Shopping – courts seek to avoid forum shopping, so a judge will consider whether application of a particular rule will promote forum shopping (i.e. influence primary conduct of plaintiffs).
Removal
Defendant MAY remove a case to Fed. Court (in the district where the state court case was originally filed) if:
1) The federal court has SMJ;
2) All defendants agree;
3) No defendant is a resident of the forum state (if removal is based on diversity jurisdiction); AND
4) Removal is sought within 30-days of service of the Summons or receiving the initial pleading (whichever is shorter).
A plaintiff CANNOT remove a case to Fed. Court.
When is the right to remove waived by the defendant?
Permissive Counterclaims = Yes – a defendant who files a permissive counterclaim in state court most likely will be deemed to have waived her right to remove the case to federal court.
Compulsory Counterclaims = No – a defendant who files a compulsory counterclaim in state court will generally not be deemed to have waived her right to remove the case to federal court.