CIVIL PROCEDURE Flashcards
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction–Intro Statement
A federal court can only hear cases where it has subject matter jurisdiction, because it is a court of limited jurisdiction. A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction if: (a) there is a federal question; (b) there is diversity of citizenship among the parties; OR (c) supplemental jurisdiction is present. Subject matter jurisdiction is not waived if a party fails to raise it at trial. It may be raised at any time, even on appeal.
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Federal Question Jurisdiction exists if a well-pleaded Complaint alleges a claim that arises under: (a) federal law; (b) the U.S. Constitution; OR (c) United States treaties. The plaintiff MUST be enforcing a federal right, and the federal question of law must be present on the face of the Complaint. Raising a defense under a federal law is NOT sufficient to trigger federal question jurisdiction.
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Diversity of Citizenship
Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction exists when:
(1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and defendants (no plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant); AND
(2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
However, jurisdiction DOES NOT exist for cases among aliens (both the plaintiff and defendant are aliens), unless U.S. citizens are present on both sides of the action. Diversity jurisdiction is determined at the time the action is commenced; a post-filing change of citizenship is irrelevant absent bad faith.
Diversity of Citizenship–Citizenship of Natural Person
For a natural person, domicile is determined by the party’s: (1) residence (physical presence in the state); AND (2) subjective intent to make the state their permanent home. The above test also applies to permanent resident aliens.
If a person resides in more than one state for an extended period of time, then the court will review factors, such as the person’s residence, voter registration/records, vehicle registration, location of bank accounts, and place of employment. Domicile continues until changed. Both residence and intent must be established concurrently for a change in domicile; the mere change of one without the other is not sufficient.
Diversity of Citizenship–Citizenship of CORPORATION
A corporation has dual citizenship, and is deemed to be a domiciliary of: (1) the state of its principal place of business (the corporation’s “nerve center” – where officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities); AND (2) any state where it is incorporated. Usually, a corporation’s principal place of business is its designated headquarters.
Diversity of Citizenship–Unincorporated Associations
A partnership, sole-proprietorship, or unincorporated association is deemed to be a domiciliary of the state of every partner/member/owner.
Diversity of Citizenship–Amount in Controversy
The amount in controversy is based on the damages alleged in good faith in the Complaint (not the actual award), unless it is legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover the specified amount. A plaintiff may aggregate his claims against one defendant, or against multiple defendants if all are joint tortfeasors (where the defendants are jointly and severally liable). A claim for injunctive relief is valued by either the benefit to the plaintiff OR the cost of compliance for the defendant (the value of the injunction).
Removal to Federal Court
A defendant may remove a case to a federal court sitting in the State where the claim was filed if: (1) the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction (original jurisdiction); (2) all defendants agree; (3) no defendant is a resident of the forum state; AND (4) removal is sought within 30 days of either service of the Summons or receiving the initial pleading (whichever period is shorter).
A plaintiff CANNOT remove a case to federal court. In addition, a case CANNOT be removed more than one year after commencement in a diversity action.
Personal Jurisdiction: Two Bases for Jx
A court MUST have personal jurisdiction over a defendant for its judgment to be binding. Jurisdiction over a defendant normally falls into two categories: (1) the traditional bases of jurisdiction; and (2) a State’s long-arm statute.
Personal Jurisdiction: Traditional Bases of Jx
The traditional bases for asserting personal jurisdiction include: (a) domicile; (b) transient jurisdiction (presence in the State when served); (c) consent; OR (d) waiver (appearing in the action without objecting to jurisdiction). The above grounds comport with the Constitutional requirements of due process.
Personal Jurisdiction–Long Arm Jx
To exert personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is not a resident of the forum state: (1) the forum state must have a long arm statute; AND
(2) the Constitutional requirements of due process must be met. California’s long-arm statute allows personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the Constitution and is the same as the constitutional analysis, which requires:
(1) that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state,
(2) so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Both prongs must be satisfied.
Scope of Discoverable Information
• In Federal Court, a party in a lawsuit may obtain discovery of all non-privileged information that is: (1) relevant to any party’s claim or defense; AND (2) proportional to the needs of the case (considering the importance of the issues at
stake, amount in controversy, party’s access to relevant information and resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden/expense vs. likely benefit). Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
• In California Courts, a party in a lawsuit may obtain discovery of all non-privileged information that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action (this is broader than the federal standard).
Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)
Claim Preclusion (res judicata) precludes the parties in an action from subsequently re-litigating any claim that was or could have been raised in that action. Claim preclusion has four elements:
(1) the parties are identical or in privity;
(2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; AND
(4) the same claim was involved in both actions (the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the previously litigated claim).
In California courts, claim preclusion may only be used when all appeals are exhausted for the case.
