Jurisdiction

Question 1

SMJ - what is it; consent/waiver

Answer 1

Subject-matter jurisdiction focuses on whether a federal court can have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the civil case.

It CANNOT be waived or agreed upon by the parties.
i.e. the parties don’t decide, its a matter of law

Question 2

SMJ - 2 types

Answer 2

(1) federal question jurisdiction;
(2) diversity jurisdiction

Question 3

SMJ - FQJ - 3 main points (what is a federal question; how must FQ be pled (2 things); what law to apply)

Answer 3

Claims involving federal law, those relating to the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute; also bankruptcy, securities, patent, trademark, and copyright law.

The federal question must appear clearly on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint (not the answer).
>>> **look out for complaints that look like they include a federal COA but are actually just preemptively guessing that ∆ will use a federal law defense
>>> the complaint must argue for **enforcement of a federal right**, not just mentioning the statute or saying it doesn’t apply

If subject-matter jurisdiction based on federal question, the federal court applies both federal substantive and procedural law.

Question 4

SMJ - FQJ - concurrent juri and exclusive juri of fed/state courts

Answer 4

Concurrent jurisdiction: state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over MOST CLAIMS, such as employment discrimination claims.

Exclusive FEDERAL jurisdiction: only federal court – bankruptcy, patent, copyright, trademark, securities, maritime, etc.

Exclusive STATE jurisdiction: divorce, alimony, child custody, probate - narrowly construed (All Parents can Drive)

>>> **NOT will contests, but actual probate proceedings
>>> a federal court will refuse to hear these ***even if the parties are diverse!

Question 5

SMJ - DJ - 2 key elements and purpose

Answer 5

Diversity jurisdiction requires that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. (Note: watch out for an amount in controversy that equals but does not exceed $75,000!)

Protects out-of-state parties from local prejudice. (emphasize this in essay question if it involves diversity jurisdiction)

There must be complete diversity (each plaintiff must be of diverse citizenship from each defendant) - a match across the V!

Question 6

SMJ - DJ - domicile for individuals

Answer 6

A natural person’s citizenship is determined by their domicile.

Person’s domicile is the state where they are physically present (physical component) and have the subjective intent to make their permanent home (mental component). - mind and behind!

**you can only have one domicile at a time, and you do not give up your current domicile until both your mind and behind are in that new state!

Question 7

SMJ - DJ - AIC (3 ancillary rules)

Answer 7

Amount must exceed $75,000 (excluding litigation cost & interest)

Good faith allegation that the amount of damages or injuries exceeds $75,000. (often tested on the essays as a fine point)
>>> will generally be good faith unless egregious difference between harm & claim

Jurisdiction is not retroactively defeated by the fact that the amount recovered is less than the jurisdictional amount.

Question 8

SMJ - DJ - executors

Answer 8

For diversity jurisdiction purposes, when an executor of a decedent’s estate is a defendant, the executor is deemed to be a citizen only of the same state as the decedent when the executor represents the decedent in litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).

Question 9

SMJ - DJ - corporations

Answer 9

A corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated AND the state where it has its principal place of business - so either can satisfy the location requirement

Remember — corporations may have multiple citizenships, each of which is considered when determining whether complete diversity exists.

Question 10

SMJ - DJ - alienage

Answer 10

28 U.S.C § 1332(a)(2) grants subject matter jurisdiction over alienage cases in which the dispute is between a U.S. citizen and an alien (citizen or subject of a foreign country)

No federal jurisdiction over case by one alien against another alien.

Question 11

SMJ - DJ - timing (3 main points)

Answer 11

Diversity of citizenship must exist at the time the suit is FILED.

Need not exist at the time the cause of action accrues.

Not defeated if one party moves to same state as opposing party. (focus on diversity at the time the suit is filed).

Question 12

SMJ - DJ - other corporate entities

Answer 12

The citizenship of a partnership, general or limited, is that of each and every partner - both limited AND general partners

LLCs are treated as unincorporated associations, meaning that an LLC is a citizen of all states of which ALL OF its members are citizens

Question 13

SMJ - DJ - infants/incompetents/decedents

Answer 13

Again, remember that a legal representative of an infant, an incompetent, or an estate of a decedent is deemed to be the citizen of the same state as the infant, incompetent, or decedent.

Question 14

SMJ - DJ - aggregation (single vs multiple plaintiffs)

Answer 14

A SINGLE plaintiff may aggregate her claims against a SINGLE defendant.
>>> The claims DO NOT have to be legally or factually related. (DISTINGUISH FROM SJ CNOF REQ)
>>> if π is suing a single ∆ on ALTERNATE claims, the AIC must be met on each claim
>>> ∆’s CC cannot be aggregated with the OG claim to meet the AIC req.

Aggregation against MULTIPLE defendants requires that the defendants be jointly liable for each of those claims
>>> so if jointly liable, add up each claim to get your AIC

Multiple plaintiffs can aggregate their claims to reach the jurisdictional limit (more than $75,000) ONLY IF the multiple plaintiffs seek to enforce A COMMON RIGHT

Question 15

SMJ - DJ - complete diversity

Answer 15

There must be complete diversity of parties. This means that each plaintiff must be of diverse citizenship of each defendant. (in other words, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant).

Complete diversity is typically satisfied if there is diversity between the named parties for the class-action suit.

Question 16

PJ - what it is; 3 types

Answer 16

Refers to a federal court’s power or authority over the parties to a case or property. It is primarily focused on due process or fairness to an out-of-state defendant.

Can be WAVIED and can be CONSENTED TO

Three types: (1) in personam jurisdiction (over the person); (2) in rem jurisdiction (over ppty); and (3) quasi in rem jurisdiction (taking of defendant’s ppty to satisfy a judgment).

Question 17

PJ - General IPJ - what is it; when can it be established - 3 scenarios

Answer 17

General IPJ means the court has PJ over the defendant for ALL causes of action

Can be established over a defendant who is:

>>> personally served with the lawsuit in the forum state (TAG juri),

>>> a defendant who has continuous & systematic contacts such that they are domiciled/”at home” in the state, OR

>>> a defendant who has consented to being sued in the forum state.

[In Personam Jurisdiction = PDC (personal served, domiciled, or consented)]

Question 18

PJ - Specific IPJ - what is it; 2 requirements

Answer 18

Specific IPJ means the court has PJ over the defendant for THE COMPLAINED OF COA

(1) is there a long-arm statute that authorizes the court to reach out and bring the out-of-state defendant …; and
(2) the out-of-state defendant:
(a) has minimum contacts with the forum state;
(b) suit arises out of those contacts; AND
(c) having suit in that state is otherwise fair and reasonable

Question 19

PJ - Specific IPJ - minimum contacts (general rule)

Answer 19

The out-of-state defendant must have **purposefully availed** himself of the benefits of the forum state such that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being sued in the forum state.

Question 20

PJ - Specific IPJ - minimum contacts; arise out of (corporations, generally)

Answer 20

Generally, a business or corporation must have **systematic and continuous activities** with the forum state.
>>> ****One-times sales or passive activities (informational websites or online processing facilities) are not enough.

for “arise out of,” be careful and look at plaintiff’s claim - if there was a contract formed in state A and injury occurred in state B, “arise out of” will depend on whether this is a BOC action or a tort action

Question 21

SMJ - SJ (what is it; analysis; effects on diversity; most common SJ occurrence)

Answer 21

Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court (DISCRETIONARY if it meets these requirements) to add claims (including state law claims) that don’t satisfy subject-matter jurisdiction to a case that has subject matter jurisdiction.

**FIRST check if these secondary claims have DJ or FQJ, if not, move with your analysis: Supplemental state claims must arise out of the ***“common nucleus of facts” (CNOF)***

>>> CNOF means that the claims are such that the plaintiff would be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding

>>> remember that “same T/O” is included within CNOF

Parties from supplemental claims CANNOT destroy diversity.

Supplemental jurisdiction often occurs when defendant is trying to add a claim or party to the lawsuit (counterclaim or cross-claim)

Question 22

Removal - main points (what it is, who can do it, major restriction, court’s discretion)

Answer 22

This allows a defendant to remove a case that was filed in state court to federal court (so STATE > FED)

>> **ALL defendants must consent

>> case MUST have been able to be brought in federal court originally

>> plaintiffs CANNOT remove lawsuits, plaintiffs bring lawsuits

forum defendant rule: removal based on SOLELY ON DIVERSITY of parties is not allowed when ANY defendant is a citizen of the forum state in which the original state action is pending.
>>> you’ll be able to remove (b/c its your right), but the case will most certainly be remanded back to state court

Removal is OF RIGHT, meaning the court simply accepts the case.

Question 23

Remand (rule & timing)

Answer 23

A PLAINTIFF can seek to remand a case that has been IMPROPERLY removed to federal court back to the state court.

Must be filed within 30 days of the defendant’s filing of a Notice of Removal. If not filed within that time period, it is waived.

>>> UNLESS you are remanding for lack of SMJ - remandable at any time

Question 24

Venue - what is it; 3 places where venue is proper; can it be waived

Answer 24

Venue relates to whether a case is in the proper court (the proper federal district court for MBE purposes).
>>> there can be multiple places where there are proper venue!

(1) Venue is proper in any district within the state where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state.
(2) Venue is proper in any district where a substantial part of the events that led to the lawsuit occurred. (i.e. – where car accident occurred)
(3) FALLBACK (only if the others don’t work): Venue is proper in any district where the court has personal jurisdiction over ANY defendant.

>>> generally only where the events occurred out of the country

**proper venue is WAIVABLE by defendant

Question 25

erie doctrine (when it applies and 3 steps)

Answer 25

**typically only for DIVERSITY cases - b/c FQJ will use federal substantive and procedural law

(1) if there is some federal law (constitution, FRCP, FRE, statute, etc.) on point that directly conflicts with state law, apply the federal law, under the supremacy clause

(2) IF there is no federal law on point, use the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits for SUBSTANTIVE LAW issues
>>> statutes of limitation
>>> tolling of statutes of limitation
>>> conflict/choice of law
>>> elements of a claim/defense
>>> standard for granting new trial because jury damages award was excessive/inadequate

(Sam Told Cam Everything Stinks)

(3) IF there is no federal law on point and we are not dealing with the categories in (2), we need to determine if the issue is substantive or procedural. For PROCEDURAL LAW issues, ask whether selecting the federal law will:

>>> substantially affect the outcome

>>> impede on an issue in which the state has a greater interest, or

>>> promote forum shopping (increased litigation in federal court)

• if it does any of these > the issue is substantive (and thus STATE LAW rules)

IF YOU ARE APPLYING STATE SUBSTANTIVE LAW, THE QUESTION THEN MAY HAVE YOU DIVE INTO CHOICE OF LAW

Question 26

FQJ and declaratory judgements

Answer 26

o **inverting the parties does not make the case arise under federal law

 i.e. if ∆ preempts π’s suit by seeking a declaratory judgment, and ∆’s complaint relies on a federal law issue, the case still does not have FQJ

Question 27

PJ - Specific IPJ - fairness factors

Answer 27

• burden on defendant and witnesses (super hard to show - must put defendant at a “severe disadvantage”)
• state’s interest in providing a forum for its citizens
• plaintiff’s interest
• convenience of litigating where all the “stuff” is

Question 28

PJ - General IPJ - “tag” juri and where it will fail

Answer 28

• if you are personally served w process in the forum state, the state has general IPJ over you
• however! defendants that go to the state to appear as a party/witness/attorney in a different civil case are IMMUNE from tag juri

Question 29

SMJ - DJ - AIC and equitable relief

Answer 29

two tests

(1) look to plaintiff’s viewpoint and if the relief requested has a value of over $75k
(e) look to defendant’s viewpoint and if the relief requested has a value of over $75k

Question 30

SMJ - SJ - key limitation (& exception)

Answer 30

RULE: in DIVERSITY cases, claims by plaintiffs generally cannot invoke SJ

>>> SJ cannot be used to override the requirements of DJ for claims by a plaintiff against an impleaded party

EXCEPTION: where there are MULTIPLE plaintiffs, and the claim by one of them does not meet the AIC, so long as they don’t destroy complete diversity!
>>> i’m assuming ignore any instance of FQJ in this scenario and just focus on two plaintiffs with DJ claims

Question 31

erie doctrine - federal common law

Answer 31

erie says there is NO general federal common law - so the general common law of torts/contracts/ppty is STATE law to be applied in diversity cases

but there are some niche areas of federal common law - preclusion for FQJ cases, international relations, disputes between states, that sort of thing

Question 32

venue - moving to transfer

• when can you do it
• can the right to transfer be waived
• requirements for the transferee court
• choice of law
• effects of a forum selection clause

Answer 32

• a party may move to transfer a case to a more convenient venue - look to convenience of the parties and interest of justice (public and pvt factors)

** a TRANSFER of venue from one proper venue to another proper venue is not subject to the “waivable defenses” rule b/c venue was initially proper

• can only go fed court > fed court
• transferee court must be a proper venue and have PJ over defendant(s)
  >>> **and generally this must be true WITHOUT a waiver by defendant(s)
• choice of law: if the case was originally filed in a proper venue, we will use the choice of law rules of that ORIGINAL venue
  >>> **UNLESS the original venue was improper (in which case we use COL from the transferee court)
• effects of a forum selection clause:
  >>> ordinarily enforced if not unreasonable
  >>> transferee court applies ITS OWN choice of law rules

Question 33

venue - “district where defendant resides” for individuals and businesses

Answer 33

individuals - where they are domiciled

businesses - ANY district where they are subject to general or specific PJ (i.e. ***not necessarily just place of incorp and PPB)

DOUBLE CHECK THIS, SOUNDS WRONG

Question 34

forum non conveniens - what is it; balancing test

Answer 34

Forum Non Conveniens – a way to DISMISS cases from a PROPER venue

o **you would use this where a court can’t transfer to the desired venue (typically a venue abroad), so the court would dismiss and the π would refile in the designated juri
>>> theoretically you could also use FNC to get into state court (not common)

o rule: use regular venue transfer balancing test but here courts generally require both private and public interest factors to weigh more heavily in favor of a FNC dismissal than a transfer
>>> **don’t forget to also make sure it is possible for π to refile in the desired court!
>>> don’t conduct a complex comparative law analysis – whole point is to just be able to dismiss on the basis of convenience

Question 35

SMJ - SJ - what happens when the claim with SMJ gets dismissed, leaving only a supplemental claim?

Answer 35

The court may continue to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state claim even though the federal claim is dismissed on the merits.

However, the state claim should probably also be dismissed (without prejudice) if the federal claim is dismissed before trial.

Question 36

PJ - Specific IPJ - minimum contacts (sliding scale tests for corporations & the internet)

Answer 36

• sliding scale test: (for the internet) focused on interactivity of the website to determine if ∆ purposefully availed himself
  
  • active: purposeful availment (like sales)
  • passive: no purposeful availment (just conveys information)
  • interactive: hit or miss (interactivity short of sales)

Question 37

PJ - Specific IPJ - minimum contacts (corporations and contracts)

Answer 37

• rule (contracts): cannot alone serve as “sufficient minimum contacts” with an out-of-state party
  
  • instead, consider these factors to determine personal availment:
    
    • prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences
    • terms of the contract (choice of law, choice of forum)
    • course of dealing

Question 38

PJ - Specific IPJ - minimum contacts (test for intentional torts)

Answer 38

• effects test: (for intentional torts) look at the relationship between ∆, the forum, and the litigation to determine if ∆ purposefully availed himself
  
  • so “did ∆ intentionally cause an effect in the forum?”

typically used for defamation cases where ∆ had used forum sources, directed the content to the forum (or referred to forum events), and the harm was felt in the forum

Question 39

relationship between removal and venue

Answer 39

In a properly removed case, venue is proper in the federal court of the state where the case was pending, EVEN IF venue would have been improper had the plaintiff originally filed the action in the federal district court of that state.

This is because venue for an action removed under section 1441(a) lies in the federal district court “embracing the place where such [state] action is pending.”

Question 40

removal - timing

Answer 40

(1) a case must be removed within 30 days of the defendant’s **receipt of a copy of the paper (order, motion, etc.) that makes the case removable**
(2) for DIVERSITY CASES ONLY, in no event may the case be removed more than ONE YEAR after it was commenced in state court

>>> typically tested by a non-diverse defendant dropping out mid case (now it becomes diverse, but can’t remove if its been over a year since the case was filed)

>>> if one defendant is joined later, the 30 day timeline STARTS ANEW on the date of his service, and he can remove in that time and bring the earlier defendants with him (assuming all consent and that he fits in that 1yr timeline)

Question 41

removal - filing procedure

Answer 41

NOTICE of removal should be filed in the FEDERAL district court that geographically encompasses the state court where the action was filed

A copy must be served on the plaintiff, and another copy should be filed in the STATE court from which the action is being removed.