FJP Fixed Flashcards
A Federal Court has 1331 jurisdiction . . .
for cases “arising” under Federal Law.
There is no jurisdictional amount requirement.
Under the Mottley well-pleaded complaint rule . . .
a plaintiff cannot rely on a defendant’s anticipated defense as a basis for 1331 jurisdiction.
The courts will only look at the plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the case “arises” out of federal law.
1331 cannot be invoked based upon . . .
- an “insufficiently substantial” federal question under Merrell-Dow
- an anticipated federal defense (Mottley)
Merrell- Dow
- FQJ exists when a well-pleaded state law claim requires the decision of a “substantial” federal question
- Policy of Restraint- do not want to “federalize” large number of state claims
If a complaint does not refer to federal law, but still “necessarily presents” a federal question . . .
the defendant can remove under 1441(a).
Mottley is satisfied if the defendant can show the plaintiff’s petition NECESSARILY presents a question “arising under federal law.”
General Personal Jurisdiction Over a Person
Under Goodyear and Daimler, for a court to be able to exercise general personal jurisdiction, their contacts with the forum state must be so “continuous” and “systematic” as to render them essentially “at home” in the forum state.
A person’s domicile is the paradigm forum for general personal jurisdiction.
General Personal Jurisdiction: Party’s Contacts (as discussed in analysis)
- “constant” and “pervasive” = YES GPJ
- “casual” and “isolated” = NO GPJ
Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over a Person: Intro
In order for a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a party, the party’s minimum contacts with the forum state must arise out of or relate to the claim.
A party must show “purposeful availment’‘ with the forum.
Specific Personal Jurisdiction: If the Suit Involves a K Between 2 Parties
Purposeful availment is determined using the four Burger King factors.
- terms of the contract
- anticipated future consequences of the contract
- site of contract
- negotiations, and
- course of dealings
Specific Personal Jurisdiction purposeful availment
The court must ensure that a finding of purposeful availment does not violate “traditional notions of due process and substantial justice.”
This is measured using five due process factors.
Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over a Person: Due Process Factors
- Degree of burden imposed
- Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
- Interest of the Louisiana forum in exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim
- Interstate efficiency, considering the location of witnesses and evidence
- Advancement of social policy, considering the availability of alternative forums
General Personal Jurisdiction Over a Corporation
Per Goodyear, a federal court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation if its “affiliations are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially “at home” in the forum State.”
The paradigm factors to determine where a corporation is are where it is incorporated, and its principal place of business.
Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over a Corporation
In order for a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a party, the party’s minimum contacts with the forum state must arise out of or relate to the claim.
A party must show “purposeful availment’’ with the forum.
Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over a Corporation: Considerations for Purposeful Availment
- Where are the products bought and sold?
- How did they end up in the forum state?
- Do they advertise?
- If they have a presence in the forum state, is it related to the claim?
Specific Personal Jurisdiction: Website Analysis
The Fifth Circuit uses the Zippo test to determine whether the operation of a website can demonstrate purposeful availment.
When a non-resident utilizes an “interactive” website that enables customers to buy and services, this conduct constitutes purposeful availment.
Evidence is required to show the website “targeted” Louisiana customers or the Louisiana market.
However, the website need not “purposefully direct its activities” towards Louisiana.
What standards should govern a 12(b)(6) Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?
Twombly and Iqbal standards
The court will dismiss the complaint if the defendant can show that the claim is “not cognizable as a matter of law,” or the complaint fails to raise claims that are “plausible” and establish an “entitlement to relief.”
Options for Joinder
- FRCP 18
- joining multiple Ds
- joining multiple Ps
- FRCP 19
FRCP 18
allows a party to join as many “independent and alternative claims,” as the party has against the opposing party
- no relationship required
Permissive Joinder Rule 20: Joining Multiple Ps
assert a right to relief:
- arising out of same T&O
- share common question of law or fact
Permissive Joinder Rule 20: Joining Multiple Ds
assert a right to relief:
- arising out of same T&O
- share common question of law or fact
FRCP 19
enables a Defendant to dismiss the suit on the basis the the Plaintiff failed to join a necessary party
Necessary Parties Under FRCP 19
- a non-party whose absence from the suit will mean that complete relief cannot be accorded by the court among existing parties
- a non-party who claims an interest relating to the subject of action and is so situated that disposing of the action without him will impair or impede his ability to protect his interest and
- a non-party whose absence may leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple, inconsistent obligations
Joinder Obstacles
- loss of SMJ
- failure to join a necessary party
Joinder Obstacles: Loss of SMJ = JOINDER NOT FEASABLE
Joinder is not permissible if joinder destroys SMJ
The court is given discretion whether the suit should proceed or be dismissed (FACTORS)
Failure to Join a Necessary Party
A Defendant can move to dismiss a suit on the ground of FRCP 19 stating the case should not proceed because of the Plaintiff’s failure to join a necessary party
Fraudulent Joinder
enables a D to remove or remand a case if they can demonstrate the P sued a party which they have no means of recovering against for the purpose of obtaining or destroying complete diversity.
What D Must Establish for Fraudulent Joinder
D must show, after the removal, that there is no reasonable possibility for the P to recover against the fraudulently joined Defendant.
The standard used to evaluate the “reasonably possibility” standard is the same standard used when evaluating a motion for summary judgment.
Motion for Summary Judgment
To successfully make a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no dispute as to any material fact and that he is entitled as to judgment as a matter of law
Court’s Procedure for MSJ
- court will look at affidavits supplied by each side
- court cannot assess the credibility of witnesses or weigh evidence
- the court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
Affidavit Requirements for MSJ
- based on affiant’s personal knowledge
- set forth facts admissible in evidence
- affiant is competent to testify on the matter
An affidavit is introduced that speaks for or against the witness credibility should be __________ for summary judgment purposes.
An affidavit is introduced that speaks for or against the witness credibility should be DISREGARDED for summary judgment purposes.
Steps for Removal
all parties who have been properly joined and served must join or consent in removal by signing the notice of removal or providing written consent
- D files Notice in FED court that encompasses the location where state court suit is pending
- when multiple Ds, each have 30 days to file NOR, starting from the date that each D received formal service of both state court petition/ complaint and citation/ summons
- originally non removable?
- later-served/ earlier-served D?
- Ds provide “short and plain statement” of the SMJ that provides grounds for removal, including facts concerning basis for original federal SMJ
- Ds must sign notice and attach a copy of all state court process, pleadings, and orders
- Ds file NOR and attachments in FED court and serve them on P with a MEMO explaining reasons for removal
- Ds take NOR, attachments, and a copy of the memo and file them in STATE court (this effectuates removal)
Removal Timing When Non-Removable at first, then Removable?
if a suit is non-removable when filed but becomes removable later, the 30 days for each Defendant runs from the date each received a “PAPER” showing the case was removable
“Paper” Showing Removal is Available
- an amended pleading
- a motion
- a judicial order
- the record of the state court proceeding
- responses to discovery
- “other papers”
Removal Timing When Multiple Ds Served at Different Times
if there are multiple Defendants who are served at different times, and if a later-served Defendant files a Notice of Removal, then any earlier-served Defendant may consent to the removal even though that Defendant did not previously initiate or consent to removal
Removal: 1 Year Past Filing Rule
A suit may not be removed on the basis of 1332 jurisdiction after one year from the filing date, even if the suit was not removable at first, and became removable later.
The one-year period is a hard deadline.
The one exception is when the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent the defendant from beginning removal procedures.
Bad Faith of P for Evading Removal
- failure to describe seriousness of injuries in petition
- intentional delay in serving D
- vague answers to interrogatories/ damages request
- delaying medical records
- requesting numerous extentions
Removal: Forum Citizen Defect Rule
If D relies on 1332 SMJ as basis for removal and if ANY D is a citizen of the forum state in which P’s suit was filed, then presence of that D creates a defect
Procedural Defect in Removal Procedure
If the plaintiff believes there to be a procedural defect in the removal procedure, they must file a motion to remand to get the case back into state court.
The motion must be filed within 30 days of the date when the notice of removal was initially filed.
If the motion is not filed, or, filed after this time period, the objection is deemed to have been waived.
Motion to Remand is Untimely
Ordinarily, there is NO statutory time limit for filing a Motion to Remand on the grounds of a defect in SMJ because of the principle that a defect in SMJ may be raised by any party at any time during the litigation, or by the court sua sponte.
EXCEPTIONS:
- Caterpillar rule
- Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine
Catepillar Rule
remand is not available for a defect in §1332 SMJ when:
- lack of complete diversity existed when the Notice of Removal was FILED; AND
- fed court did NOT recognize defect and remand; AND
- lack of complete diversity was REMEDIED LATER so that defect did not exist when trial began
trial judgment = “jurisdictionally valid” / remand may NOT be obtained
if defect continues to exist until after trial BEGINS then it’s TOO LATE to be cured and it will be REMANDED when fed court or a party notices
Conflicts Between States regarding choice of law
Under Klaxon, the federal court must apply the same “choice of law” rules that would be followed by the Supreme Court in the forum state
Conflicts Between States regarding choice of law: CONTRACTS
Conflicts Between Federal and State substantive law
To discourage forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law, a federal court must apply state substantive law in a 1332 suit as long as there is no federal law on point according to the Erie doctrine
- “outcome determinative”
- no federal rule on point
- damages/ remedies available
Conflicts Between Federal and State Procedural law
According to Erie Doctrine from Hanna v. Plumer, a federal procedural law will supersede a state procedural law when the two are in conflict in a 1332 diversity case.
Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions
Prior to the filing of a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, the opposing attorney must be served with the motion
They are given 21 days to withdraw the complaint
The motion must articulate the reason why the complaint has “no basis in fact.”
P MUST EITHER THEN WITHDRAW OR NOT . . .
Two elements must be met for the sanctions to be applied under Rule 11:
- The pleading must be “legally or factually baseless,” and
- The Plaintiff’s attorney did not conduct a “reasonable and competent inquiry” before filing the complaint
Rule 11: After P is given 21 Days to Withdraw . . .
- P withdraws = motion will never be filed
- P does not withdraw = federal court will determine whether the motion should be granted by ascertaining whether the complaint was based on the attorney’s “best knowledge, information, or belief” and was formed after a reasonable investigation under the circumstances
Proper Venue
Under 1391(b)(1), proper in “a judicial district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state”
If 1391 is not available, then the proper venue is in the district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions given rise to the claim occurred under 1391(b)(2).
What is a Timely Notice of Appeal
Per FRAP 4, a notice of appeal must be filed with 30 days of entry of judgment
- However, FRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(v) provides that if a party files a timely motion for new trial under Rule 59, then the 30-day period runs “for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion”
SMJ
In order for a federal court to have valid subject matter jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity between the parties (each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant) and the amount in controversy must exceed the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.
For individuals, state citizenship is determined by . . .
DOMICILE, which is determined using both a person’s physical presence in the state, as well as their intent to remain indefinitely.
The indefiniteness only needs to be for the foreseeable future, not permanently.
A person can only have one state of citizenship.
Factors for Domicile
- residence
- registered to vote
- own/ rent home
- time in new place
- job
- license/ registration
statements alone are not sufficient