civil procedure Flashcards
subject matter jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s competence to hear and determine cases of the general class and subject to which the proceedings in question belong. For a federal district court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint, it must have either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
The defense of lack of subject matter subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time throughout litigation, as it is not waivable.
SMJ: Federal Question
Federal courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S. In general, if the COA is expressly created by federal law, and federal law provides the underlying right, then federal question jurisdiction will exist. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the federal law issue must be presented in the plaintiff’s complaint.
There is no federal question jurisdiction when federal law is mentioned in the complaint as an anticipated defense to deny the applicability of that law.
SMJ: diversity jurisdiction
Federal courts may exercise original diversity jurisdiction over actions when (i) the parties to an action are citizens of different states and (ii) the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $75,000. Generally, a plaintiff’s good-faith assertion in the complaint that the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement is sufficient, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount alleged.
complete diversity
For the diversity of citizenship requirement to be met, there must be complete diversity between opposing parties when the action is filed. There is no diversity of citizenship if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. To determine an individual U.S. citizen’s state citizenship for diversity purposes, courts look to the state of the individual’s domicile when the complaint was filed.
diversity of citizenship - individuals
For an individual to be a citizen of a state, the individual must be a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of the state. In general, an individual is a domiciliary of the state in which she is present and intends to reside for an indefinite period. An individual can have only one domicile at a time. The presumption is that a place of domicile continues until it is definitively changed. An intent to move without relocating to another state will not result in a change in domicile.
citizenship - corporations
For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. The “principal place of business” refers to the “nerve center” of the corporation, which is generally the corporate headquarters (where corp.’s officers direct, control, and coordinate corp.’s activities).
supplemental jurisdiction
A district court with jurisdiction (diversity or federal question) over a claim may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over additional claims over which the court would not independently have SMJ (usually state law claims against a nondiverse defendant) but that are so related to the original claim that the additional claims form part of the same case or controversy. Two or more claims arise out of the same case or controversy when they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.
supplemental jurisdiction: federal question
When the district court’s SMJ for a claim is based on the existence of a federal question, additional claims against the same party can be heard by the court through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the common-nucleus-of-operative-fact test is met. Claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact if they are part of the same case or controversy and should be tried together. However, a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (i) over claims that raise new or complex state law issues or that substantially predominate over claims within original federal jurisdiction; (ii) when the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed; or (iii) if there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.
supplemental jurisdiction: diversity
The limitation on supplemental jurisdiction does/does not apply here. When a plaintiff seeks to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the plaintiff is in federal court based on diversity, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a way that defeats complete diversity (not req. to satisfy amount in controversy).
personal jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is the power of the court to exercise jurisdiction over persons or property. Federal district courts may exercise personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the courts of general jurisdiction of the state in which the district court sits. Personal jurisdiction can be general (obtained by presence, domicile, or consent) or specific (minimum contacts).
State courts of general jurisdiction may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent authorized by both the state’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits states to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who have established minimum contacts with the state such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The minimum contacts test balances the factors of purposeful availment, foreseeability, and related to determine if the contact was sufficient. Additionally, it balances the state’s interests in the case and the burden on the defendant to determine if the notions of fair play and substantial justice are offended.
personal jurisdiction: key analysis points
- long arm statute
- minimum contacts
-traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
-foreseeability
-specific jurisdiction
-general jurisdiction
proper venue
Venue is proper (1) in any district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, or (2) in any district where a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the action occurred, or (3) in any district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, if there is no other district in which the action might be brought.
The venue statute asks whether D was subject to PJ at the commencement of the suit
Corporation: A corporation resides where it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. [discuss PJ]
Torts: Most courts hold that in personal injury torts venue is proper in the district where the defendant’s tortious acts occurred, but not in a district that is connected to the incident only because the plaintiff received medical treatment there.
personal jurisdiction: step 3 - specific jurisdiction
When a COA arises out of or closely relates to a D’s contact with the forum state, jurisdiction may be warranted over that action even if that contact is the D’s only contact with the forum state. This type of jurisdiction is often referred to as “specific personal jurisdiction.” For specific personal jurisdiction to exist, there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation.
Events giving rise to P’s COA did not otherwise take place in State B. Further, D’s affiliation with State B is not such that the D could reasonably foresee being taken to court there and therefore, specific personal jurisdiction over D for this tort-based complaint does not exist.
D purposely availed itself of the benefit and protection of State by _ in State and should have reasonably anticipated a claim arising from _.
personal jurisdiction: step 4 - general jurisdiction
When a COA does not arise out of or relate to the D’s contacts with the forum, jurisdiction is warranted only when the defendant is “at home” in the forum state. To determine whether D is subject to general PJ, the proper inquiry is whether a D’s affiliations with the forum state are so “continuous and systematic” as to render D essentially “at home” in the forum state.
A corporate defendant is always at home in the state of the corporation’s place of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. In exceptional cases, a corporate defendant’s operations in another forum may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation also at home in that state.
