subject matter jurisdction Flashcards
what are the two topics in subject matter jurisdction
ie in what situation can a federal court step in
diversty jurisdction and federal question
what is diversity jurisdiction
fed courts can hear disputes between parties with complete diversity as long as the amount in controverys exceeds 75k
who has the ulitmate duty to bring up whehter a federal court has subject matter jurisdction
the court! even if none of the parties decide to bring it up
what two things are needed for a fed court to have diversity jurisdcition via 1332a
The parties must be completely diverse: this means that no P can be from the same state as any defendant,
The P must establish the amount in controversy of more than 75k – the overall value of the case to whichever party prevails
what is the complete diversity rule in diversity jurisdction
complete diversty= when a P of the case is a citzen of a different state than the d
in a diversity jurisdction suit, which party bears the bruden of showing that they are a citzen of a different state than the oppsing party
the party that took it to federal court
how do you determine a party’s citizenship in diverstiy jursidction if they are a human being
human beings are citizens of the state in which they reside AND intend to remain indefinitely
how do you determine a party’s citizenship in diverstiy jursidction if they are a corporation
citizenship of a corpration is determined by 1. princple place of business and 2. place of incorpration
a corpration can have more than one state of citizenship
mas v perry
ean Paul mass= citizen of France
Judy mas=citizen of MS
Before their marriage (which occurred in MS) the two were grad assistance for about a year at LSU and after their marriage, they returned to LSU
After two years they moved to IL, and it was their intention to return to Louisiana while Mr. Mas finished his degree at lsu
When they returned to LA, they rented an apartment from D
It was discovered they were being watched in their apartment via a two-way mirror
ISSUE
Were the elements of DJ met?
The key is not if you’ve abandoned your OG domicile, its have you abandoned your OG domicile for a NEW domicile
elements were met!
because the wife never intended to remain in la, ms remained her state of citizenship
amount in controversy met as well
hertz
Friend and other employees of Hertz Corporation sued Hertz, saying it didn’t follow California’s wage and hour laws. Hertz wanted to move the case to federal court because the employees and the company were from different states. The employees said Hertz’s main place of business was in California because it made the most money there and did most of its business there.
the nerve center test is the one that should be use in establsing a coproratons place of citizenship and the business activies test is wrong
nerve center test - a companies nerve center is usually the main headquarters, and its a single place
It is a place WITHIN THE STATE, NOT THE STATE ITSELF
Business activities test= leads some courts to look incorrectly at the state itself, measuring the total amount of business activity that the corporation conducts there and determining whether they are significantly larger than the next ranking state
Freeland v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. – penny short case
Shows how strict we are in enforcing 1332a amount in controversy
None of the parties brought up the issue ; the court did! The court has a DUTY to do so , even if neither of the parties bring it up
what do we mean by using the legal certaininty test in terms of the amount in controversy
When P is invoking Diversity jurisdiction, we assume its in good faith, and we ask the the defendant to NEGATE that good faith presumption by showing to a legal certainty that the amount that the P has advanced is not advanced in good faith
harshey key takeaway – what level of proof did D need to meet?
FACTS
P originally filed in state court, and the defendants removed the case by invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction under USC 1332, which requires diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding 75k
P moved to remand the case to state court for failure to show that the amount is in controversy
ISSUE
Whether defense counsel’s assertion based on experience with personal injury litigation is enough to meet the D’s burden of providing competent proof.
the court (wrongly) said the correct level of proof is clear and convincing evidence
The evidence presented by the d would meet the preponderance standard, but the court is being stricter than that, closer to clear and convincing evidence
Court broke down each case and made them look a lot less compelling
can you aggregate claims to meet the 75k for diversty jurisdiction? if so, what are the limitations?
yes! you can only add calims together if they are claims brought by a single P against a single D
YOU CANT ADD CLAIMS FROM TWO DIFFERENT DS TO MEET YOUR 75K
carroll v stryker: key take away – what does it change about the standard of proof D has to bring for the amount in controversy for divrsty jurisdction
P was a commissioned sales rep assigned to solicit orders in Wisconsin for the D
D fired P because he failed to meet his quota
When d refused to pay him a commission he felt he was rightfully owed , P sued in state court for unpaid wages under WI’s wage claim statute and sought recovery under equitable doctrine
ISSUE
(raised by the court) whether P’s damages exceed the 75k needed for a diversity jurisdiction suit
perponderance of the evidnece is the standard!
As the party removing the case to federal court, d had the initial burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence facts that suggests the judicial amount had been satisfied
If that preponderance of the evidence standard is met by the D the burden SHIFTS to the P to prove to a legal certainty that the stakes of the lawsuit DON’T exceed 75k
Louisville key take away (fed question jurisdiction)
couple promised free rides for life after train crash
The K was performed by the D until Jan 1 of 1907, when the D declined to renew the passes
The refusal to comply with the K was based solely on upon the part of the act of congress of 1906, which forbids the giving of free passes or free transportation
P(residents and citizens of Kentucky) brought suit in equity in the circuit court of the US for the western district of Kentucky, against D, who is a RR company and citizen of the same state
ISSUE
Is there an issue of a federal question that would justify this case being in federal court?
the well pleaded complaint rule: fed questions of jurisdction exsists only when the fed law issue is presented in the PLANTIFFS complaint
cant be anticaptatoy on any fed issue a defedant may raise
what is the holmes creation test in terms of federal question jurisdiction
If the cause of action is created by federal law (e.g., Congress passes a statute giving you this cause of action) it “arises under” federal law.
grable and sons – key takeaway (fed question jurisdction) whats the fed quesetion test in terms of state law claims
In 1994, the IRS took some property from Grable & Sons Metal Products because they owed back taxes. The IRS told Grable about the sale by certified mail, and then sold the property to Darue Engineering and Manufacturing. Five years later, Grable said that they didn’t get the right notice about the sale because they weren’t served in person, just by mail. Darue said the case should go to federal court because it was about a federal tax law.
the modern approach to fed question
- Necessary fed issue
- Issue must be disputed between the pirates
- Must be substantial AND
- Cant distript any congressionally approved balance of fed and state judicial responsibilities
this is the rare case that did meet the factors
National interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction over the disputed issue on removal, which would not distort and division of labor between the state and federal courts, provided or assumed by Congress.
what is supplemental jurisdction
a form of tag along jurisdiction that permits a plaintiff to bring claims that would not otherwise qualify for federal court jurisdiction because these additional claims are related to claims over which the fed courts have subject matter jurisdiction
what does 1367a do in terms of supp jurisdiction?
What is an anchor claim?
GIVITH!
Once we have an anchor claim, any other claim RELATED to it MUST come under common nucleus of fact
ANCHOR CLAIM – the one who has its own basis for subject matter jurisdiction
what does 1367b do in terms of supp?
when do we apply it?
TAKETH AWAY! ie answers if it takes aways sup. jurs.
This part applies ONLY if the anchor claim founded solely on section 1332 (diversity jurisdiction)
Excludes supplemental jurisdiction for additional claims under the three listed out scenarios
- A claim By a P, made AGAINST a party joined under FRCP 14, 19, 20, OR 24
- A claim By a person proposed or seeking to join as a plaintiff under FRCP 19 or 24
- If joining that claim will be inconsistent with the diversity and AIC requirements
what are the key questions in a rule 1367b analysis?
Does subsection a(assuming we have an anchor claim) allow the second claim to come in? – ie applying the gibbs test
Does subsection b kick the claim out
draw out the 1367 rule flow chart
see chart
what does 1367(c) do in terms of supp jurisdction
TAKETH ie the courts discretion!
grants discretion to decline supp jurisdiction (even if it passes a and b) if
- it raises a novel or complex issue of state law
- if it substantially predominates over federal anchor claim OR
- all anchor claims are dismissed
gibbs – key takeaway/the gibbs test
minor sues on state AND federal law claims in fed court
gives us our 1367a stadard for allowing an unrelated calim to lacth on to an anchor claim
A federal court can hear both state and federal claims at the same time if they are related and come from the same set of facts.
Gibbs test- testing whether a federal court would hear a state claim along with a federal claim :
1. The claims must derive from common nucleus of operative fact
2. The ps claim must be such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding
3. The federal issue must be substantial
difference btween pendent and ancillary claim
pendent= when the P adds additional claim
ancillary= when D reacts to Ps claim
exxon mobile – key take away
The Supreme Court combined two cases to solve a disagreement about the amount-in-controversy in diversity cases. The first case was a class action where 10,000 Exxon dealers sued Exxon for overcharging them for fuel. Some dealers’ damages didn’t meet the amount needed for diversity jurisdiction, but the court allowed them to join the lawsuit because at least one plaintiff did. The second case was about a girl who got seriously injured by a tuna can and tried to include her parents as plaintiffs, but the court said their damages weren’t high enough.
where other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy requirement, the court may exercise jurisdiction over other plaintiffs who might otherwise be property joined but who do not allege damages which reach the jurisdictional amount
what is the contamintation theory in the exxon case
what about the indivisibilty theory
why does the court reject them?
The indivisibility theory (via the D’s argument) Page 210
The idea that fed court does not have jurisdiction over multi claim dispute if they don’t have OG jurisdiction over EVERY CLAIM
However, the indivisibility theory doesn’t really work because it would make supp jurisdiction invalid
Contamination theory –page 211
Only applies to anchor claims founded in diversity and if you have one claim that fails, it contaminates all the others
If we accept the contamination theory, then theres no reason to conclude that these lower amount in controversy
what is removal? (1441)
who is allowed to remove a case
To remove a case means to force a case that the P initially filed in state court to be litigated in federal court instead
ONLY A DEFENDANT CAN REMOVE A CASE
The court reasoned that the P, by initially filing the action in state court, had submitted itself to the state court’s jurisdiction and elected its forum
what does 1444a say about removal?
it only allows removal of state court actions of which the district court of the us have og jurisdiction
ie if the P could not have chosen to bring action in federal court, the d cant remove it
what does 1441(b)(2) say about removal (ie the forum defendant rule)
ex: if mike, from NV sues cody from KS on a state law claim in KS state court, can cody remove?
says that if a d is sued in his home state, he cant remove on the basis of diversity (not federal questiom jurisdction! key to remember)
no cody cant remove; cody has no need to be protected from local prejudce since he has been sued in his own home state
what does 1441f say about removal
provides that the federal court is not preculded from hearing the case simply because the state court lakced jurisdiction over it
where do removed cases go to
the federal district court for the district and diviision embraching the place where such an action is pending in the state court
ie the venue will remain the same
what is 1446 talking about
how to remove a case
what is 1447 talking about
how to remand a case ie how to get a case back into state court
what is needed for removal
1446(b)(1)
notice of removal – once given, removal happens automatically
what if there is more than one defendnat to a case and one wants to remove?
all ds need to agree to removal!
how long does a D have to remove a case ? does the time period ever start over?
must remove within 30 days of service of process
30 days starts over for each newly served defendant
