JURISDICTION Flashcards
What jurisdiction must a court have to hear and enforce orders in a case?
- Subject matter jurisdiction
2. Personal Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction
- Limited subject matter jurisdiction
- Scope of jurisdiction
- Non-waivable
- Federal Question and Diversity
Federal Question Jurisdiction
- Claim created by federal law, or
2. Claim created by state law and requires resolution of substantial question of federal law
Substantial question factors
- Federal issue will or has been raised in the case
- Federal issue will or as been disputed in the case
- Resolution important to federal system
- Exercise will not disrupt balance between federal and state judicial systems
Well-pleaded complaint rule
A federal issue must be present on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.
Diversity Jurisdiction
- Complete diversity
2. Amount in controversy exceeds 75,000
Complete Diversity
Adverse parties do not share citizenship, which is determined as of the date the complaint is filed.
Complete diversity - individuals, corporations, unincorporated entities
Individuals - domicile
Corps - PPB (nerve center) and place of incorporation
Unincorp - state of citizenship of each partner or member (SP, LLP, LLC, LP)
Amount in controversy
- Exceeds $75,000
- Satisfied if made in good faith
- Determined by looking at face of the complaint
Aggregating claims
- Claims by single plaintiff against single defendant can be aggregated even if unrelated
- Claims by multiple plaintiffs cannot be aggregated except where they share common and undivided interest
Class actions - amount in controversy
If at least one plaintiff has claim in excess of 75k then other plaintiffs with lesser claims can join the class under supplemental jurisdiction.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
When court has original jurisdiction over at least one claim, then court may also have supplemental jurisdiction over other claims for which there is no original jurisdiction.
Supplemental Jurisdiction - Elements
- Same set of events
- Party is permitted to bring forth the claim (FQ: P or D; DJ: existing Ps cannot add nondiverse claims later and no P can bring claim that would destroy complete diversity. D can bring claims.)
- 1367 factors (will court decide?)
1367 Factors (will court decline jurisdiction over the nondiverse state law claims?)
- original jurisdiction claims dismissed
- supplemental claim predominates over original jurisdiction claim
- supplemental claim raises novel or complex issue of state law
Removal Jurisdiction Rule
A case is removable in its entirety if all claims are removable.
Removal Jurisdiction Elements
- At least one claim falls within federal court’s original jurisdiction (supplemental claims and claims severed/remanded not fall within original jurisdiction)
- Defendants joined or consented to removal (diversity: all Ds must consent; FQ: only Ds whose names are on the federal question claims)
- D properly filed notice of removal (filed in federal court where case is pending in state court)
Personal Jurisdiction Rule
A court must have personal jurisdiction over the person or property subject to the case.
Types of personal jurisdiction
- In personam
- In rem (all parties who have potential claim; notice)
- Quasi in rem (specific P; minimum contacts/fairness test)
Personal Jurisdiction Elements
- Statutory basis (long arm statute)
2. Is exercise of PJ over D consistent with fairness requirements of the Due Process Clause?*
Fairness requirements of the Due Process Clause*
- General jurisdiction (“at home” test)
2. Specific jurisdiction*
Specific Jurisdiction Rule*
The defendant has sufficient contacts with the state to the extent that it would be fair to make the defendant defend the case in that forum state.
Specific Jurisdiction Elements*
- D’s forum activities or contacts give rise to cause of action (nexus)
- D had minimum contacts w/ forum state (purposeful availment/foreseeability; stream of commerce)
- Exercise of jurisdiction supported by due process standard of reasonableness*
Specific jurisdiction - Purposeful availment/foreseeability*
- Defendant purposefully undertook activities that constitute minimum contacts with the forum state such that it is foreseeable that defendant could be hauled into court there.
- Extent and nature of D’s in-forum activities are more than de minimis. Does not have to be consistent or systematic.
Specific Jurisdiction - e-commerce
- Level of interactivity on D’s website
- Extent of hits made on that website by users in forum state
- Extent of commercial activity conducted by D in forum state
