Subject matter jurisdiction

Question 1

Federal question jurisdiction

Answer 1

Fed courts have jx over claims presenting a question of federal law -

• fed Constitution
• federal statutes/treaties
• federal common law

Question 2

Well-pleaded complaint rule

Answer 2

Question of federal law must arise in PLN’s affirmative case, regardless of DFT’s defenses

Question 3

Federal questions inside state law claims

Answer 3

Can assert jx over a state law claim raising a federal issue if the FQ is:

• necessarily raised,
• actually disputed,
• substantial, (this is the most important of the 4) AND
• capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the fed-state balance

e. g. lease says no violations of fed environmental law. P wants to terminate lease for perceived violation of fed environmental law.
- P CAN get into fed court if D says conduct occurred but doesn’t violate
- P CANNOT get into fed court if both parties agree conduct would violate, and dispute is if conduct happened

Question 4

Diversity jurisdiction

Answer 4

Fed courts have jx over actions between CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES if the amount in controversy is GREATER THAN $75k

Complete diversity rule - NO PLN and NO DFT are citizens of same state

Diversity measured AT TIME SUIT IS FILED, but AMENDING the complaint to add or dismiss can “re-check” diversity

Question 5

Diversity jurisdiction - class action exception

Answer 5

Class actions with MORE THAN 100 people and MORE THAN $5M need only be “minimally” diverse - one PLN diverse from one DFT

Question 6

Determining citizenship - humans

Answer 6

Humans are only citizens of one place at a time - state where they reside and intend to remain indefinitely

“Wanderer rule” - citizenship doesn’t change til person “plants roots” by residing and intending to remain indefinitely

Question 7

Determining citizenship - corporations

Answer 7

Corporations are citizens of TWO places - place where they are INCORPORATED and their “principal place of business” i.e. “NERVE CENTER”

Remember: BOTH need to be different from plaintiffs to be diverse

Unincorporated associations like unions, LLCs, partnerships are citizens of EVERY state where a member is a citizen

Question 8

Determining citizenship - incapacitated party

Answer 8

Citizenship of the incapacitated party (minor or deceased, e.g.) is relevant, not their representative

Question 9

Amount in controversy requirement

Answer 9

Amount in controversy must exceed $75,000

Court defers to PLN’s allegation of financial injury unless it appears “to a legal certainty” to be wrong (e.g. punitive damages disallowed by state law, not just implausible). PLN need not actually recover more than $75k, just plead it in good faith

CAN aggregate claims against a single DFT, CANNOT aggregate against multiple DFTs

Question 10

Supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 10

Step 1: determine RELATEDNESS

• does the “piggyback” claim arise from the same transaction/occurrence as the one with FQ or diversity claim (the “anchor”)?
• if the DFT is the one trying to supplement, a “yes” here usually means they just get it

Step 2: do we have a “sneaky PLN” trying to tack on more defendants to bypass diversity?

• is the anchor claim a diversity claim? If no, it’s FQ, you’re good, move on
• if it is diversity, is the supplemental claim against a JOINED DFT under 14/19/20/24?
• if so, no supplemental. This is to stop PLNs from adding more DFTs to one valid claim to try to bypass diversity requirements against the new ones

Step 3: consider state prerogatives. is there some valid reason for court to deny supplemental jx anyway? Common ones:

• anchor claim dismissed
• novel/complex state law issue
• claim “substantially dominates” over the anchor claim

Question 11

Removal

Answer 11

A DFT can remove a case from state to fed court if it could have originally been filed in fed court