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
Rule 24 - Permissive Intervention Claim
any claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with P’s original claim against D
CAN NEVER satisfy CNOF for 1367
1441 Removal
D must timely file notice in the fed district court in which P’s suit was filed
- notice of removal “short plain stmt of grounds for removal”
- In fed court which state suit lies
- Within 30 days of being served notice
1441 Removal LATER
non-removable when filed, but later becomes removable
30 days from receiving copy of any paper from which case has become removable
Removal Defect once removed
May stay if:
1. P fails to timely motion to remand
2. SMJ defect governed by Caterpillar or fraudulent joinder doctrine
Caterpillar Rule
Remand is NOT available for a defect in 1332 SMJ under 3 conditions:
1. defect existed on date removal was filed; AND
2. Fed court did not recognize defect and did not remand; AND
3. lack of complete diversity was remedied later and no longer existed by trial beginning
Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine
Prevents P from remand when:
1. P joinder of non-diverse party creates 1332 defect
2. diverse D removes suit anyway
3. diverse D can show there is no reasonable possibility for P’s recovery against fraudulently joined non-diverse D (MSJ standard)
P in Bad Faith violates removal statutes to prevent removal of suit
- Removal is 1332 diversity, D has one year from filing in state court to remove; BUT
- if P acted in bad faith by DELIBERATELY not disclosing AIC until after the one-year deadline D will be able to remove
Removal Defects
- If any defendant does not join in removal
- Not timely filed
- Fed statute bars removal (workers comp, jones act, FELA)
- Filed in wrong Fed Court - remedy is transfer to proper court
1332 Removal Defects
- any D is not divers to P
- Becomes removable more than 1 year after suit filed (unless P acted in bad faith preventing removal)
1441(c) Sever and Remand
removed based on 1331, and includes unrelated state law claim for which neither original SMJ or Supp J exist
Court will sever and remand those claims to state court
Filing Notice of Removal - Procedure
- ALL Ds who are properly joined and served MUST join in or consent to removal
- File notice in district court embracing the location of the state court which P suit was filed
- when multiple Ds, each D has 30 days from service to file for removal
NOTE: Earlier Ds may join later Ds even if time has passed - Provide short and plain stmt providing grounds for removal
- Ds must sign notice and attach a copy of all STATE court process, pleadings, and orders
- Ds must file notice and attachments in fed court and promptly serve them on P along with memo
- Ds must take the notice and attachments and a copy of memo and file in STATE court effecting the removal
Remand
P can object when:
- One year time limit has passed
- FORUM D = for diversity cases (1332), D CANT remove if it is a citizen of the state where the state law claim was filed
How to Remand
- P must file a motion to remand under 1447
- In federal court
- within 30 days of receiving notice of removal was filed in fed court by D
IF untimely it is waived
No time limit to remand based on SMJ
General Personal Jurisdiction
Continuous/systematic - AT HOME
Individuals = domicile
- essentially at home in forum state
Corporations = state of incorp and PPB
Specific Jurisdiction
Claim arises out of contact with the forum state
Specific Jurisdiction - Minimum Contact Factors
- D’s minimum contacts MUST arise out of or relate to the claim
- Purposeful availment of the protections protections of the forum state/derive benefits
BURGER KING factors (contracts):
1. Terms of the contract (forum will govern)
2. Anticipated future consequences
3. Site of contract negotiation
4. Course of dealings
ZIPPO factors (interactive website):
1. place orders and purchase online
2. no evidence targeting state is required
3. no evidence of directed activities at forum state required
PJ Due Process Factors
Even with minimum contacts may not exercise if it would violate traditional notions of due process and substantial justice:
1. degree of burden on D
2. Ps interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
3. Interest of LA forum in exercising J over P claim
4. interstate efficiency, considering location of witnesses and evidence
5. Advancement of social policy, considering the availability of alternative forums
Venue (Residency Test)
Venue is Proper:
1. One D = fed district where D resides
2. Multi Ds = if all in same state THEN in any fed district in that state which any of them reside
Venue Residency Determination
Natural Person = Domicile
Entity (corp and non-corp) =
FIRST, deemed to reside in any federal district in which the corporation has the same type of minimum contacts sufficient to subject it to PJ if separate state (where PPB is)
SECOND, IF NO such district court determines which one has the most significant contacts to the coproration
FOREIGN CORPS = any district
Venue (Transactional Test)
Proper where:
1. substantial part of the act or omission giving rise to claim occurred
2. substantial part of property subject to action is located
Venue (fallback option)
IF NOT available under residency or transactional test:
any federal district in which any D is subject to the fed courts PJ
Transfer of Venue 1404
For convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice a fed court may transfer to another proper venue:
1. where the action might have been brought; OR
2. any fed district to which ALL parties have consented
Venue improper to proper venue 1406
- court MAY dismiss suit on grounds for improper venue
- OF if it is in the best interest of justice, transfer the suit to any fed district in which the case could have been brought
- OR if defendants waive the right to object to improper venue court MAY proceed with litigation
1983 Civil Rights
Established by fed constitution, fed statutes, and fed case law
Ds =
1. state officials acting under color of state law
2. Local (parish,city) government entities or officials
“Persons” liable =
1. State officials sued for damages in personal capacity
2. state officials sued for prospective relief
3. local officials sued in ANY capactiy
4. Local gov entities
1983 Remedies
- Damages:
-when sued in personal capacity; NOT state capacity (11th amendment immunity)
- NO punitive damages against city - Injunction
- Declaratory Relief
- Reasonable Attny Fees
- to P when P wins
- To D when D wins and P was in bad faith
Ex Parte Young Doctrine
State official acts in an official capacity in enforcing a state law and thereby violates fed law, official LOSES 11th AMENDMENT IMMUNITY and may be sued (NOT FOR DAMAGES)
name official NOT state or state agency
State Official Acts in Personal Capacity
11th immunity does not apply (damages not paid out of state treasury)
Collateral Order Doctrine & Immunity Defense
fed court denies motion to dismiss 1983 suit on grounds 11th amendment immunity & judicial order denies a defense of common law qualifies immunity…
D can seek IMMEDIATE appeal
COD=
1. Order conclusively determines a disputed question
2. Order resolves an important issues (immunity) that is separate from the merits
3. The order resolves an issues that is effectively unreviewable later
1983 Suits against Local Officials and Entities
NO 11th amendment immunity
P can get damages from local if they can show:
1. custom or policy based on
- Enactment of laws, statutes, or ordinances
- Decisions by policy makers
- failure to train officials
- inadequate screening of employees
1983 Damages from Local Officials
Sued in official capacity and can show policy or custom = YES
Sued in personal capacity = YES
BUT official will have a defense of common law qualified immunity for acts done in reasonable good faith
Pullman Abstention
Fed Court may abstain from deciding a federal constitutional challenge on a state law when:
1. meaning of then state law is unclear; AND
2. possible that a state court decision resolving the meaning could make it unnecessary for the fed court to decide the fed law question
Court will stay the litigation pending the outcome of state court litigation then dismiss or proceed
Burford Abstention
Serves to:
1. Prevent interference by fed court with admin state regulatory schemes
2. When those schemes relate to local matters that traditionally are subject to state regulation
Court will dismiss UNLESS Ps claims can be separated from the state agency’s fact-finding and enforcement regulations
Younger Abstention
Fed court MUST abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction and dismiss suit where P seeks injunction against ONGOING state criminal proceeding
EXCEPTIONS:
1. P shows ongoing state prosecution is brought up in bad faith or harassment
2. P has no meaningful opportunity to raise the claim in state court
USUALLY only applies to CRIM but:
1. When there is a pending state civil enforcement proceeding in which the state is a party to a civil proceeding closely related to the state’s criminal statutes OR
2. pending civil proceeding involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts ability to perform their judicial functions
Tax Injunction Act
Fed courts shall NOT enjoin, suspend, or restrain the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under state law or local law where a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of that state
Service Requirments
MUST Serve copy of complaint and summons within 90 days after the complaint is filed
Serving person requirement
- CANT be a party
- must be over 18
Accepting Service Requirment
Can accept on D’s behalf IF:
1. person resides at D’s place of abode AND;
2. is of suitable age and discretion
Waiver of Service
P must send following items first class mail to D:
1. copy of the complaint
2. A request for waiver
3. Two copies of the waiver
4. A prepaid means of returning the executed waiver to plaintiff
D has 30 days to execute waiver
D has 60 days to answer from time P sent waiver
P must file in fed court to prove service
Refusing to waive service without good cause
D must reimburse P for costs:
1. service charged by private process server
2. reasonable attny fees
3. Costs of filing
Demand for jury trial
P must serve D with written demand for Jury trial
NO LATER than 14 days from day when last pleading directed to the issue is served (typically answer)
Rule 12b6
Motion to dismiss for for failure to state a claim
Judge may consider:
ONLY the pleadings and must accept the non-movant’s pleaded allegations as true
Basis for granting 12b6 (matter of law)
- party’s claim is not cognizable as a matter of law OR
- Party fails to supply sufficient facts to raise a claim that is PLAUSIBLE AND ESTABLISHES AN ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF (TWOMBLY)
Rule 56 MSJ
Judge may consider:
Pleadings
Discovery and Disclosures
Affidavits
MAY NOT determine witness credibility or evidence THAT is for the fact-finder at trial
Rule 56 Basis for Granting
when there is NO GENUINE DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT and the party making the motion is entitled to judgement as a MATTER OF LAW
12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
after pleadings have closed party can assert as a matter of law that the complaint or answer is insufficient and seek a judgment on the pleadings (if you miss 12b6 this is available)
Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions
Before D files, P MUST be served with the motion and has 21 days to withdraw the complaint
IF Ps attny withdraws within 21 days of service, the motion is never filed
Assessing Rule 11 motion for sanctions
Court will look at whether the complaint was based on Attny’s best knowledge and information or belief that was formed after an investigation that was reasonable under the circumstances
TWO elements:
1. pleading is legally or factually baseless from objective perspective
2. Whether Ps attorney conducted a reasonably inquiry before signing and filing complaint
Initial Disclosures
Must disclose within 14 days of 26(f) conference
-contact info for people likely to have discoverable material and subjects of the info that disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses unless used SOLELY for impeachment
-Docs, copy or description unless for impeachment
- Insurance agreements
- Damages
Continuing Duty to Respond to Requests for Production
- Documents are described with reasonable Particularity
- Documents are discoverable
- Docs are within D’s Possession
Continuing duty to make a reasonable search of all sources that may contain the requested documents
Rule 26(d)
CANT seek discovery before Rule 26f conference
Interrogatories
Limit to 25
Depositions
Limit to 10 unless stipulated otherwise or leave of court
Trial Subpoena
Requirments:
1. Process server not a party and at least 18
2. Tendered fee for attendance and the mileage allowed by law
Non-Party Attendance at trial
May be commanded to attend and testify when specified place is within 100 miles where the non-party: resides, employed, regularly transacts business in person
Affidavits
- Based on Personal Knowledge
- Affiant is competent to testify on the matters
- Facts would be admissible as evidence
Rule 50 - Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
D can make motion at any time after P has been fully heard on the issue of liability and then there after at any time prior to submission to jury
NOTE: D must make motion once to preserve the motion for after trial
Rule 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Standard
grant if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiff on the issue of liability
Rule 54 Appealing Interlocutory Dismissal Of Claims
*appeal only available after a FINAL judgment that disposes of all claims and parties…HOWEVER rule 54 = a party may ask the fed district court to certify there is NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY and order the clerk to enter a final judgment as to the claims or parties that have been disposed of
Rule 62 (post trial)
automatic stay of the judgment
Rule 50 Judgment as a matter of Law (Post Trial)
Must have raised during to reserve for after
within 28 days of entry of judgment
Rule 59 - Motion for New Trial (post trial)
filed within 28 days of judgment
D must show the verdict was against CLEAR weight of the evidence
Automatic stay expires??
D may be required to post bond or security:
1. judgment is for money, a bond, or security + costs, interests and damages for delay
2. Judgment for granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction - court may require bond or security to protect other party
Upon filing bond D (losing party) will have a stay pending appeal
Appeal
D can file notice of appeal in the fed district court
Must filing within 30 days of judgment
