Jurisdiction Flashcards
If a federal statute does not provide a federal remedy for a violation…
there is no federal jdx, because allowing such jdx would go against Congress’s decision not to create a federal COA.
A prisoner may bring a writ of habeas corpus in fed court within one year of the conclusion of direct review by the state courts BUT…
The prisioner must exhaust all available state remedies before applying for a writ.
A writ is a COA alleging that the prisoner’s confinement is in violation of his rights under the 5th, 8th, or 14th amendments.
Raised by: lack of a fair and impartial trial due to misconduct by the prosecutor or ineffective assistance of counsel is a violation of prisoners rights under the DPC and grounds for writ of HC.
Removal is proper if a case could have originally been brought in federal court, and…
removal was filed in a timely fashion - within 30 days of service of the OG action.
Citizenship for diversity jdx is determined by looking at the date when the suit was filed.
Federal courts have OG jdx over all civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties, of the US…
and the mere presence of federal law in a claim is insufficient to create jurisdiction - the federal law MUST have a SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT on the state law issue.
Ex: malpractice claim for attorney who did not raise federal defenses is NOT substantial, because the court will be evaluating hypothetical outcome of raising those defenses > does not change the real world result
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as a claim over which the court has federal question jurisdiction, but the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction…
where the state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim. Here, the state law contract claim is for $5 million, and the federal claim for $10,000 appears to be relatively minor and ancillary in comparison to the state claim.
Notice of removal must be filed within ____ days of service of the initial pleading, but whenever a new defendant is added, the defendant has another __ days to remove the action.
30 days; 30 days
The first issue for a removal question is whether the case could have been brought originally in federal court. The answer here was yes. Federal-question jurisdiction existed over the federal claim against the first defendant. Supplemental jurisdiction existed over the claim against the second defendant because the claim arose from the same events as the federal claim against the first defendant. The next questions to ask are…
whether the case was founded solely on diversity and, if so, whether one of the defendants was local (a citizen of the state where the case was brought). Here, the case was not founded solely on diversity–there was a federal question in the case–and thus the limits on removal that apply to diversity cases do not apply here.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is about…
the relative convenience of the forum where a case is brought and an alternative forum in another court system, such as another state or a foreign country. Here, the plaintiff sued in a forum where personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue all were proper, but because the foreign country where the accident happened would have been a much more convenient forum the court nevertheless had the power to dismiss the case under the forum non conveniens doctrine, in contemplation of the case being brought in that more convenient forum.
Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over…
divorce cases, regardless of the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy
Based on the contacts found between the forum state and the defendant, the court must find that exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This is a balancing test used by the courts, weighing the following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s interest in trying the case in the forum state and the availability of other forums; (2) the defendant’s burden in trying the case in the forum state as opposed to the defendant’s state of residence; and (3) the forum state’s interest in the case.
Here, because the company is on the brink of insolvency, a court will likely find the defendant’s burden in defending in State A (when its offices are in State B) so high as to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
The well pleaded complaint rule is…
the federal issue must be on the face of the complaint, AND must need to be there - an anticipated federal defense will not suffice for SMJ.
