Civil Procedure Flashcards
MedForms’s delivery of the summons and complaint to the company’s CEO satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) and of the Constitution.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), service upon a corporation may be effected within a United States judicial district by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made,” or “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent.”
It is irrelevant that the manner of service chosen by MedForms was in violation of state law. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the service of process, regulates procedural matters and thus is controlling law in federal diversity suits, notwithstanding any conflict with state service law. See Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965). Finally, this method of service (personal delivery of the summons and complaint to the CEO) was reasonably calculated to provide the company with actual notice of the case and therefore satisfies constitutional requirements. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust, 339 U.S. 306 (1950).
The District Court has diversity jurisdiction over MedForms’s breach of contract claim because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and MedForms and the company are citizens of different states.
MedForms’s breach of contract claim against the company is created by state law and therefore cannot support federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Original jurisdiction will exist, if at all, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction).
Federal district courts can exercise jurisdiction over claims between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, MedForms has claimed damages of $500,000, and the court will accept this as the amount in controversy unless the allegation was made in bad faith or it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover that amount. There is nothing in the facts of this problem to suggest that MedForms’s claim was made in bad faith or that its damages were less than $75,000 to a legal certainty. Hence, the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.
Note
[NOTE: An examinee who incorrectly concludes that there is no diversity jurisdiction should go on to analyze whether the district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over MedForms’s claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would authorize the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over MedForms’s claim against the company if it is part of the same constitutional “case or controversy” as the woman’s discrimination claim against MedForms. In this case, there would be no supplemental jurisdiction because the two claims are not part of the same case or controversy.
Claims form part of the same case or controversy if they arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). Here, the woman’s and MedForms’s claims arise from related facts, but they do not arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. The operative facts underlying the woman’s claim are based on how her MedForms supervisor treated her and his allegedly gender-based firing of her. MedForms’s claim rests on the company’s unsatisfactory performance of its data-entry obligations under the contract. The main operative facts that form the basis of the two claims are c ompletely separate—the supervisor’s alleged harassment and biased action on the one hand, and the company’s alleged inadequate contract performance on the other.]
MedForms’s joinder of the company as a third-party defendant is improper because a third-party defendant may be joined by the original defendant only when the original defendant claims that the third party is liable for all or part of the plaintiff’s original claim.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) authorizes a defendant to bring a nonparty into an action only in very limited circumstances. If the defendant claims that the nonparty “is or may be liable to [the defendant] for all or part of the claim against it,” then the defendant may bring a third-party complaint against the nonparty and the nonparty may be joined as a third-party defendant.
Here, MedForms has attempted to bring the company into the action by alleging that the com-pany breached its contract with MedForms. MedForms does not claim that the company is or might be liable for any damages that MedForms might be ordered to pay to the woman. Moreover, there are no facts that suggest that the company played any role in, or had any obli-gation to indemnify MedForms for, the behavior of MedForms’s supervisor that is the basis for the woman’s claim against MedForms. In short, any liability that the company might have to MedForms is entirely independent o f any l iability MedForms may incur to the woman. Thus, MedForms’s attempt to bring a third-party complaint against the company exceeds the bounds of proper joinder, and MedForms’s complaint should be stricken.
