Subject Matter Jurisdiction Flashcards
12(b)(1)
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
12(h)(3)
At any time the Court decides they lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, the case may be dismissed
The U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2
District Courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions under constitutional rights, laws, or treaties
Diversity Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §1332
parties filing suit who are not residents of the same state, where the federal court would apply state law, and meet the minimum amount requirement
Complete Diversity
Bars claims where any one plaintiff is a resident of the same state as any defendant, no matter how many parties are involved. (Strawbridge v. Curtiss)
Citizenship Domicile
True, Fixed, Permanent, and Principal establishment to which they intend to return when absent therefrom
Change of Domicile
Take up residence in another state with the intention to remain a resident in that state
Mas v. Perry
The P’s a French husband living in Louisiana and a Mississippi wife studying in LA; they were found to be residents of Mississippi. The couple was married in Miss. and was only in Lou. to study for school thus, they did not change domicile.
Nerve Center Test
The place where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the organization’s activities
Defining a Corporation
a business incorporated under state law is treated as a corporate entity. Hoagland v. Sandberg
Domicile of Unincorporated Associations
take on the citizenship of each association member
1332(a)(2)
Permits foreign citizens to bring suit against each other so long as opposing citizens have complete diversity
Stateless Persons
No jurisdiction is established over a stateless person where the only basis of federal jurisdiction is diversity. Newman-Green v. Alfonzo-Larrain.
Dual Nationals
Must be a citizen of a state to bring suit in diversity action
Sadat v. Martes: Egyptian dual national with a home in PA brought suit in the U.S. but did not have diversity because they had no intention to stay in the U.S. and, therefore, were not domiciled in any state as a resident.
Minimum Amount (Value) of a Claim
Must Exceed $75,000, Claim Made in Good Faith (unless otherwise stated by statute)
Injunctive Relief Claims
for anticipatory damages can be used when made in good faith – unless it can be legally certain that the actual amount is less
A.F.A. Tours, Inc. v. Whitchurch
The trade secrets case measured potential losses that may arise from a former employee providing services to clients. While it was uncertain that the former employee would make a certain amount, it was reasonably foreseeable that he might and that the losses would exceed the minimum requirement.
Rules of Aggregation: Single Plaintiff
Single Plaintiff may bring multiple claims against a single defendant to reach the minimum amount even if their only similar quality is the party charged
Rules of Aggregation: Multiple Plaintiffs
Multiple plaintiffs may bring a common and indivisible claim against a lone defendant to reach the minimum amount: Personal injury claims typically fall short as they are individual, discernable, and calculable
Federal Question Jurisdiction (Article III)
Questions that arise under federal law; having any ingredient of a federal question or issue to be addressed
Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. 1331)
Arising under federal law …
1) Presents a serious federal issue
2) Consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division between state and federal courts
Where State Law Creates FQ
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
Facts: Shareholder suit to enjoin a trust company from investing in federal bonds. Where the cause arises from state law, but the right to relief rests upon constitutional interpretation, district courts have jurisdiction.
Shoshone v. Butler
A case over a right within a state that was originally created by the federal constitution does not create federal question jurisdiction. The material question of importance rests upon state law interpretation.
Garable & Sons v. Daute Engineering & Manufacturing
A suit to quiet title over a property dispute related to the IRS sale of the property creates FQ jurisdiction because the IRS (and hence federal law) is a serious issue that would prompt federal court adjudicating the controversy.
Louisville & Nashville Rail. Co. v. Mottley
Contract in Ky to give free train passes to parties to not bring forth state-law torts claims, and Congress later enacted a law prohibiting free transport passes. While there was a question of constitutional law, it was a subsequent question to a cause of action that arose from state law–therefore, it was not sufficient.
Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
Federal question Jurisdiction does not arise where a defense to a state law matter might arise out of Federal Law.
Gunn v. Minton.
A legal malpractice claim over a prior case in federal law does not create a substantial federal question because the federal issue being analyzed is hypothetical, and there can be no substantive legal change to the original determination.
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
The patent infringement suit removed to federal court was upheld because patent law is created under federal law, therefore giving the right for federal question jurisdiction to be granted
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Cases under original jurisdiction that create jurisdiction over all other related claims that form part of the same case or controversy (ability to resolve additional arising controversies)
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
Requires FJ over the original claim, and the multiple claims must be derived from a “common nucleus of operative facts”
Aldinger v. Howard
Civil rights claim brought under state law to add a local town as a defendant. While there was a common nucleus of facts, the new defendant could not be joined without an independent federal basis
28 U.S. Code § 1367
(a) Supplemental jurisdiction over claims with original jurisdiction that are so related to form the same controversy under Article III of the US Consitution
(b) Where the original basis is solely over §1332, Claims “so-related” (trigger Gibbs) by P’s made against Persons joined (D’s) under Rule 14 (third-parties), 20 and 24, OR by a plaintiff proposed to be joined by Rule 19, inconsistent with the Jurisdictional Requirements of §1332 (diversity of parties)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Where additional parties (Plaintiffs) would otherwise satisfy (complete diversity) their claims may be brought so long as one of the plaintiffs meets the minimum requirement. Here, a daughter brings a claim where her parents are joined as Plaintiffs, and only the daughter meets the minimum requirement amount.
Removal (28 U.S.C. §1441)
Procedure by the defendant to take a case from state court to bring it in federal court, so long as it could have originally been brought in federal court
Who can bring a removal action?
Shamrock Oil Gas Corp. v. Sheets: P cannot be removed to federal court in response to D bringing a federal counterclaim to the state action
Home Depot v. Jackson: 3rd party D cannot remove to federal court; 1441 only refers to the original defendant sued by the plaintiff
Who can bring a removal action?
Shamrock Oil Gas Corp. v. Sheets: P cannot be removed to federal court in response to D bringing a federal counterclaim to the state action
Home Depot v. Jackson: 3rd party D cannot remove to federal court; 1441 only refers to the original defendant sued by the plaintiff
Grable & Sons Element Test (FQ Jurisdiction)
- Whether the state law claim raises a federal issue;
- That is actually disputed;
- Substantial; and
- Which the federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities
