Fed Civ Pro Flashcards
Minimal Diversity is allowed in the following circumstances
-Federal interpleader act;
-Class actions with claims more than $ 5 million; and
-Interstate mass torts if at least 75 natural persons from many states have died in
one accident (e.g., airline crash).
Minimal Diversity
Exists when any plaintiff is diverse from any defendant
Diversity must exist when
the complaint is filed NOT when the cause of action occurred or when the trial commences
Removal based on diversity jurisdiction is proper only if:
- There is complete diversity;
- The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; and
- The action is brought in a state of which no defendant is a citizen
Removal based on diversity jurisdiction time limit:
Must remove within one-year of the commencement of the action in state court, unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to try to make the case nonremovable
Notice of removal is filed in
the federal court, with a copy to the state court.
When the notice of removal is filed, state court jurisdiction…
ends automatically
In the case of an improper removal, plaintiff can
file a petition for remand
Only plaintiffs or defendants can file for removal?
Defendants
In order for a case to be removed, all defendants must consent to the removal within
30 days of service of the lawsuit.
Removal moves case from
state court to federal court
Transfer moves case from
one federal court to another federal court
Removal is proper only if
the case could have been brought originally in federal court
For removal purposes, case must have come within the _____ of the federal court
Original
Hypothetical to determine whether removal is proper:
If the plaintiff had sued in federal court in the first place, would the federal court have had subject matter jurisdiction?
Well-pleaded complaint rule:
Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the federal question appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint
If a case was improperly removed, plaintiff can file a petition for
remand
Claims constitute the “same case or controversy” if they
arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact.
Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court with subject matter jurisdiction over a case to hear additional claims over which the court would not independently have jurisdiction if
ALL the claims constitute the same case or controversy.
Supplemental Jurisdiction is within the courts ____ to exercise
discretion
Same nucleus of operative fact means
all the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
Supplemental Jurisdiction applies whether or not the claims involve the joinder of an additional party
Example 10: Plaintiff asserts a federal claim against Defendant 1 and a related state-law claim, arising out of the same common nucleus of operative fact, against Defendant 2. The federal court may hear both the federal claim against D1 and the state-law claim against D2
When the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises a federal question, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
any related state-law claims against the same defendant, “anchoring” them in federal court.
Supplemental Jurisdiction on the sole basis of diversity is harder/easier to assert than asserting supplemental jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction
harder
For purposes of supplemental jurisdiction, if the claims are made solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, then there must be
complete diversity between the plaintiffs and the joined defendants, and the claims against each defendant must satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement
Supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to defendants sought to be joined under the permissive joinder rule in a case based exclusively on
diversity jurisdiction in which exercising jurisdiction would destroy diversity.
A counterclaim in a federal court sitting in diversity does not need to meet the amount in controversy
requirement as long as the counterclaim is
compulsory
A compulsory counterclaim is
one that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim
A permissive counterclaim is one that does NOT
arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim.
When a district court has diversity jurisdiction over a claim, which rule applies to determine whether the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an additional claim.
the common-nucleus-of-operative-facts rule
When exercising supplemental jurisdiction on the basis of diversity, the addition of an additional party cannot
destory diversity
A permissive counterclaim can only be heard through supplemental jurisdiction by a federal diversity court if
it independently satisfies diversity jurisdiction (i.e., complete diversity and $75,000+)
Crossclaim
Claim by a coparty (i.e., a plaintiff against another plaintiff, or a defendant against a codefendant)
A crossclaim must arise out of
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the action or of a counterclaim.
To qualify for supplemental jurisdiction, a cross-claim
1) Must be related to a claim over which the court has subject-matter jurisdiction (i.e.,
the “anchoring” claim; and
2) Must not be asserted by a plaintiff against a person made party under Rules 14, 19,
20, or 24.
The statute bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity jurisdiction cases over:
Claims by plaintiffs against persons made party under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24;
Claims by parties seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24; or
Claims by parties proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19.
If the claim of one diverse plaintiff against a single defendant satisfies the jurisdictional
amount, other diverse plaintiffs who have related claims against the defendant can also be heard even if
their claims do NOT satisfy the jurisdictional AIC minimum.
These claims are not barred by § 1367, although they are claims “by a plaintiff,” because
a single defendant has not been made a party by Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24.
Supplemental Jurisdiction works in diversity cases for:
o Compulsory counterclaims asserted by defendants;
o Cross-claims asserted by defendants, so long as they arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence; and
o Voluntary joinder of plaintiffs when (i) there is single defendant, (ii) there is complete
diversity with all named plaintiffs, (iii) one of them has a claim exceeding $75,000, and (iv)
all claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
Supplemental Jurisdiction does not work in diversity cases for:
o Claims by a plaintiff against:
Impleaded third-party defendant (Rule 14),
Additional plaintiffs or defendants joined under Rule 19 or 20, or
Parties who have intervened under Rule 24.
o Claims by plaintiffs joined involuntarily (Rule 19)
o Claims by plaintiff intervenors (Rule 24)
Supplemental jurisdiction works for federal question cases across the board, so long as
the additional claims are related to the federal “anchor” claims.
Personal Jurisdiction
Concerns the power of the court to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of this defendant (nothing to do with plaintiff since plaintiff volunteered)
Long-arm statute
Chief means of asserting PJ over out-of-state defendants
Default federal personal jurisdiction rule
use the long-arm statutes of the states in which they sit.
Supplemental jurisdiction does not ever allow you to join a
a non-diverse defendant or non-diverse plaintiff
You must always answer two questions when analyzing personal personal jurisdiction:
- Has the basis for exercising PJ over an out-of-state defendant been authorized by
statute or by rule of court? - Is the particular basis for exercising personal jurisdiction permitted by the Due Process
Clause of the US Constitution?
Types of Personal Jurisdiction
o In personam: against the person
o In rem: against the thing
o Quasi in rem: “sort of” against the thing
In personam jurisdiction
against the person
In rem jurisdiction
against the thing
Quasi in rem:
“sort of” against the thing
Due process requires minimum contacts between the defendant and the
forum state such that it is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to sue the defendant here.
In assessing minimum contacts, courts look for
a purposeful availment by the defendant of
the protections of the forum’s law. Contacts between the forum and the plaintiff do NOT suffice.
Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction can be
waived.
you can waive personal jurisdiction by
Voluntarily litigating on the merits (i.e., a general
appearance). This includes almost anything other than challenging jurisdiction.
A defect in PJ must be raised at the ________ or it is waived.
first opportunity. “First opportunity”: A pre-answer motion to dismiss if the defendant chooses to file one,
OR if the defendant does not file a pre-answer motion, must be raised in the answer.
General in personam jurisdiction
The defendant can be sued on any claim whatsoever, even if it is unrelated to the
defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
Specific in personam jurisdiction
Plaintiff’s claims against the defendant must arise out of or directly relate to the
defendant’s contacts with the forum
Governed by the state’s long arm statute
Exceptions for tag jurisdiction
The defendant was in the state only to answer a summons or was brought there by force or fraud.
Bases for General Personal Jurisdiction
physical presence (tag jdx), domicile, consent (express or implied), corporations “at home” in the state
Corporation is “at home” in a state where
-The state of incorporation; and
-Where the principal place of business (i.e., the “nerve center”) is located; and
-corporate defendant’s operations in a
state to be so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation essentially “at
home”
What is covered by a state’s long arm statute
Almost everything is covered so long
as the claim arises out of the transaction involving that state.
Federal Interpleader Act
Authorizes nationwide service of process
In Rem jurisdiction
Suit against any kind of property, real or personal located in the state where you are suing
Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction
Suit to adjudicate the claim to property of a particular defendant or defendants; the subject matter
of the suit may or may not be related to the property. When the property is not the subject of the suit, the ownership of property in the state
is not nearly enough to establish general jurisdiction over the defendant. Minimum contacts test applies.
