SMJ Flashcards
SMJ barf
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Federal Question § 1331
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil matters arising under their authority
Article 111
Confers jurisdiction to the federal courts over all cases of law and equity arising under the constitution and treatises or which shall be made under their authority.
Arising under test
P is part of class to be protected by statute Congress intended to provide a private right of action Federal cause of action furthers legislation Coa is not traditionally a matter for the state
Diversity § 1332
For a federal court to exercise smj there must be complete diversity where no P from the same state as D and the amount in controversy exceeds 75k
Supplemental Jurisdiction § 1367
(a) Fed ct. have supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that related to the cause action. b. No supplemental jurisdiction w/ Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 c. May decline when 1. claims arises out of novel or complex state law 2. Claim predominates over claims District Court had J. 3. District court has dismissed all claims where it had OJ.
Challenging SMJ
1.Rule 12(b)(1): Motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ 2.Rule 12(h)(3): Whenever it appears that there is a lack of SMJ, court shall dismiss OR Not show up. Collateral Damage.
Gibbs Test
- Step 1: Original claim (anchor claim) must invoke either federal question or diversity jurisdiction 2. Step 2 (Gibbs): Additional claims must arise from a common nucleus of operating fact. Rationale: Must arise out of same case (and controversy)
Supplemental Jurisdiction Barf
The court may be able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other claims arising from the same constitutional case or controversy
Flowchart for determining supplemental jurisdiction
Is the non-federal, non-diversity claim asserted by ∆? No (Yes – OK) Is the issue related to federal question? No (Yes – OK) Would the case violate complete diversity? Yes Then it cannot be heard.
What procedural steps are necessary to remove a case from state court to federal court
D must file a notice in the federal court which states the grounds for removal, signed under Rule 11. D must attach all documents served on D in the state action D must serve notice to all adverse parties D must file copy of notice in state court.
Under the Erie Doctrine, which law does the court apply if the federal law directly conflicts with the substantive state law
Under Hanna, if the law directly conflicts, then apply the federal law. Examples, U.S. Constitution, FRE, FRCP.
Aggravating claims
- 1 (P) V. 1 (D) 75K OK 2. 2 (Ps) v. 1 (D) total 75k NO. 3. 2 (Ps) v. 1 (D) ONE AT 75K the rest what ever OK
Under the Erie Doctrine, which law does the court apply if the federal law conflicts (though not directly) with the state law. What if its substantive state law?
Outcome determinative test: Would outcome be different under state law than under federal law – argue state law applies as substantive Balance of interests test: Do either federal or state system have stronger interest in applying its rule. (ex. it’s important that a jury make the finding, Byrd). Avoid forum shopping: If applying federal rules would result in all cases going to federal court, then apply state law. Any time the state law is substantive it’s applied (unless federal law directly conflicts)
If a federal court can transfer venue to another federal court, what factors will it consider in doing so?
Convenience of parties & witnesses and Interests of justice must substantially outweigh π’s interest in choice of forum. THESE ARE IMPORTANT TO CITE: Then add “public interest factors”: choice of law, the burden of jury service, court docket, community interest in having dispute resolved. Then add “private interest factors”: where witnesses and evidence are located, etc.
