Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure Flashcards
Federal Question 1331
First amend, employment discrimination, Federal Environmental, Antitrust, FLSA, Copyright, RICO, Bankruptcy
Mottley Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule
Must look to P’s complaint to determine whether a question “arising under federal law” is presented in the suit
CANNOT look at D’s anticipated answer raising a fed question
Substantial Factor Test
a fed court may ONLY exercise 1331 J when a well-pleaded state law claim requires the decision of a SUBSTANTIAL federal question
(state court negligence trying to use fed statute WONT WORK)
Necessarily Presented Fed Question
Petition presented a federal question but did not explicitly say so, D CAN remove to fed court
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act 2201
authorizes a court to declare the right and other legal relations of any interested party seeking a declaration, whether or not further relief could be sought
Diversity Jurisdiction 1332
- Must have case over $75K; AND
- COMPLETE diversity
Citizenship Test
Individuals = Domicile (Physical present AND intent to remain indefinitely)
Corporations = Place of incorporation AND Principal Place of Business (HERTZ NERVE CENTER TEST)
Hertz Nerve Center Test
State where high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities
Non-Corporate Entities
Citizenship of EACH member of the organization (corporations follow corporate rule i.e. PPB and Incorp State)
Direct Action Suit
P chooses to sue company directly (inc or not) that provided insurance to the harmer and chooses NOT to join the harmer
Insurer will have the citizenship of itself AND the unnamed D
Timing of Citizenship Requirment
must be diverse at time of filing in federal court; change after that is IRRELEVANT
Amount in Controversy
Attaches at time of filing
Pleading of a specific and sufficient amount that EXCEEDS $75 satisfies the facially apparent rule requiring a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that it is likely that P will recover the jurisdictionally required amount
Amount in Controversy when NO $$$ amount in complaint?
Court can rely on inferences drawn from facts in the complaint (medical expenses, lost wages, etc)
Removal by D based on Amount in Controversy
1446: the amount in controversy shall be deemed the sum demanded in good faith in initial pleading
EXCEPTIONS:
1. P seeks non-monetary relief
2. P seeks a money judgment in a state that prohibits demand for specific sum
3. P seeks money judgment and state practice permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount demanded by plaintiff
Mistake in Calculating AIC at time of filing
If AIC was not over 75k at time of filing federal court should dismiss for lack of SMJ
Fed court did NOT have SMJ on the date the complaint was filed
Post-Filing Agreements affecting AIC
Does not affect good SMJ at time of filing if post filing reduces to below $75k
AIC Does NOT include
Interest
Costs
Attorney’s or contingent fees
- Unless state law or contract allows for attorney’s fees
AIC in Installment Contract
direct legal effect of judgment entitled P to amount over 75K
Acceleration clause?
Fraud?
Declaratory Judgment that K is valid and stays in effect?
Aggregating Claims to meet AIC - Single Plaintiff
Single P vs Single D = OKAY
Single P vs Multiple D =
1332 NO
1367 NO
Aggregating Claims to meet AIC - Multiple Plaintiff’s
Multiple P vs. Single D =
1332 NO unless multiple P’s are claiming a single title or right and a common or undivided interest
1367 YES can IF:
1. suit is by multi P vs. one D
2. All P’s are diverse from D
3. at least one P has a claim that qualifies as original claim under 1367 (satisfies 1332 - exceeds 75 + complete div); AND
3. Supplemental Claims satisfy 1367 because they are so related to original claim to form part of the same case or controversy by share a common nucleus of operative facts
Multiple Ps against single D an no P alone satisfies AIC
1332 NO
1367 NO
Erie/Klaxon
If no federal provision on point, fed court must apply state law for SUBSTANTIVE issues (outcome determinative)
Must apply same choice of law rules that would apply in state supreme court of the forum
Hanna
If there is a federal provision on point that DIRECTLY conflicts with state law apply FED LAW
Rule 18 - Joinder of Claims by P
Allows a party to join as independent and alternative claims as many as they have against opposing party (unrelated OKAY)
Rule 20 - Joinder of Parties
Co Ds only when:
1. Ps assert against ALL Ds a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence; AND
2. Ps show a question of fact or law common to all Ds
Co Ps when:
1. Ps assert a claim to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence; AND
2. A question of law or fact common to all P will arise in the action
Rule 19 - Compulsory Joinder
Party is required to join when:
1. they claim an interest relating to the subject of the litigation
2. Cannot provide complete relief without the absent party
3. Absent party’s rights will be impeded or impaired if not joined
4. they are so situated that disposing of the action in their absencce may leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations
Party is necessary…is joinder feasible?
OKAY = SMJ, PJ, and Venue are proper
NOT OKAY = ruins SMJ, PJ or venue (dismissed or can it proceed w/o party?)
Rule 22 - interpleader
Someone has money and wants to distribute to potential claimants legally
must show complete diversity between stakeholder and ALL claimants
AND
Amount in controversy exceeds 75k
Statutory -1335 SMJ (interpleader)
supplies remedy and SMJ for suits that:
1. AIC over $500
2. at least ONE claimant diverse from one other claimant
3. Venue is proper in any fed district in which any claimant resides
Joining 1367 State Claim w/ original 1331 Claim
Fed court has 1367 supp jurisdiction if state claim is so related to the claim that they form part of the same case or controversy (CNOF)
Court discretion on 1367
Can decline:
1. state claim raises novel or complex issues of state law
2. claim SUBSTANTIALLY predominates
3. Court has dismissed all claims to which they had original J
4. In exceptional circumstances or other compelling reasons
1367 and Joinder of Parties under 1331
OKAY because under rule 20 it occurs out of the same transaction or occurrence
1367 ALWAYS available
- compulsory counterclaim under rule 13
- Cross-claim under rule 13
- impleader claim by D who brings a third party D in suit under Rule 14
- Rule 14 claim by an IMPLEADED third party D against the Ps
- Intervenor OF RIGHT claim under rule 24 brought by D-intervenor
- Additional party claim under rule 13(h)
1367 SOMETIMES available
BASED ON 1331:
1. rule 14(a)(3) claim by P against third party D
2. Rule 24 intervention OF RIGHT claim by P-intervenor
1367 NEVER available
- PERMISSIVE counterclaim under rule 13
- PERMISSIVE intervention claim under rule 24
Rule 13 - Compulsory Counterclaim
against an opposing party that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim (always satisfies 1367 CNOF test)
Rule 13 - Cross Claim
against a co-party that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original claim or of a counterclaim (always satisfies the 1367 CNOF test)
Rule 13 - Permissive Counterclaim
claim against opposing party that is NOT compulsory
May be completely unrelated to to plaintiff’s original claim against D
NEVER satisfies 1367 CNOF
MUST have SMJ (cannot be supplemental)
Rule 14 - Impleader by D vs. 3p D
defending party brings summoning a non-party who becomes 3p D who is or may be liable to D for all or part of claim against
ALWAYS satisfies CNOF test under 1367
Rule 14 - 3p D claim against P
asserted by third party D against the plaintiff that arises out of same TOC of p claim against original D
ALWAYS satisfies CNOF test under 1367
Rule 14 - Intervenor of Right Claim by D-intervenor
after fed court aligns intervenor of right with D’s side, these must be met:
1. must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is subject of the action; AND
2. intervenor of right also must be so situated that disposing would impair or impede its ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately rep that interest
3. ALWYAS satisfies CNOF test under 1367
Rule 14 - P claim vs. 3P D
against 3p D that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence of original claim
Prohibition on 1367 for allowing supp J for this type of claim when original claim is based on 1332 and the exercise of supp J is inconsistent with 1332
Rule 24 - Intervenor of right claim by P intervenor
after aligned with P side
- must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is subject of the action; AND
- intervenor of right also must be so situated that disposing would impair or impede its ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately rep that interest
- ALWYAS satisfies CNOF test under 1367
Prohibition on 1367 for allowing supp J for this type of claim when original claim is based on 1332 and the exercise of supp J is inconsistent with 1332