Subject Matter Jurisdiction Flashcards
SMJ Hypos!
Cinderella wishes to sue her Evil Step Mother for violation of the New Mexico Consumer Protection Act. Does her case arise under the “laws of the United States?”
“laws of the United States” refers to laws made by Congress, not to the laws of the various states. A New Mexico statute is a law of one of the states of the US, not OF the US, that is, of the national government. Unless she is diverse citizen from her Evil Step Mother, Cinderella will have to proceed in state court.
Belle is injured in an accident with Gaston on Interstate 95. Gaston is a trucker who is engaged in interstate commerce, transporting goods among the various states on the eastern seaboard. Belle claims that Gaston was negligent, in that he was staring at his beauty in the mirror and swerved into her lane, causing the accident. Does the claim come within the arising-under Jx authorized by 28 USC sec. 1331?
In this case, there is some vague presence of federal law lurking on the periphery, since the accident takes place on an interstate highway and involves a defendant engaged in interstate commerce. But the claim clearly does not arise under federal law as that phrase is construed under sec. 1331.
Belle’s suit will be for negligence, a claim based in state tort law. She is not suing for violation of any interstate commerce regulation, just for negligence. Her “well-pleaded complaint” will be entirely sufficient if it alleges that basic elements of a negligence claim: that Gaston owed her a duty of due care, that he breached that duty, adn that the breach caused her damages. Nor will Belle have to prove anything about federal law in order to establish her state law claim.
Buzz Lightyear sues Star Command, his employer, for failure to pay him overtime as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. He claims that he is an employee of SC, that he worked more than 40 hrs/wk for 21 weeks, and that he is entitled to time-and-a-half for his overtime hours during those weeks. SC answers the complaint, denying the allegation in Buzz’s complaint that he is an “employee” entitled to extra pay for overtime work. SC’s position is that Buzz is a manager, who does not meet the definition of “employee” in the Act and is not entitled to overtime pay.
a. SC, after filing its answer, moves to dismiss for lack of SMJ, arguing that the court lacks Jx because the Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply to Buzz. What should the court do?
b. SC moves for summary judgment, submitting with its motion affidavits of various corporate officers and a copy of Buzz’s job description, to prove that Buzz’s duties were managerial. Buzz submits evidence of his own on the point, but the court concludes based on the supporting materials that Buzz is, as a matter of law, a manager and not entitled to overtime under the Act. Should it dismiss for lack of Jx or on the merits?
a. The court should deny the motion. Buzz has sued under the federal statute, claiming that he is entitled to benefits under the statute. There is no question that the Fair Labor Standards Act creates a federal right to overtime, and that Buzz is claiming recovery under that federal right. SC’s position is simply that Buzz isn’t actually entitled to overtime under the statute, because he doesn’t qualify as an “employee.” This is simply a denial on the merits of Buzz’s claim; it does not alter the fact that federal law creates the cause of action that Buzz asserts.
There is a crucial difference between challenging Jx on the ground that the plaintiff has not asserted a federal claim, on the one hond, and claiming that he can’t prove the federal right he has asserted, on the other. Think of it this way: If the defendant could defeat federal Jx simply by denying that the plaintiff is entitled to win on his federal claim, the federal court would seldom have any arising under Jx!
b. Here, the court has taken Jx over the case, as it properly should, since Buzz asserts a federal claim. However, after receiving evidence on the issue of whether Buzz is an “employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court concludes as a matter of law that he is not and, therefore, cannot recover overtime under the statute. Thus, judgment should enter against him on the MERITS.: Buzz has asserted a claim under federal law and lost on it, but this does not change the fact that the court had Jx to hear the case. Buzz’s failure to prove his federal claim does not mean that he failed to assert one sufficient to give the federal court arising-under Jx.
Barbie, the public relations manager for Mattel, is fired. She concludes that she was fired simply because the company wanted a younger person in her job and brings suit against Mattel under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a federal statute that bars discharge or other discrimination in employment based on age. The statue expressly creates a right for employees to sue for damages for acts of age discrimination.
Mattel admits that the ADEA governs its employees, and that Barbie, who is 54, is protected under the statute. It defends on the ground that it fired her for incompetence, not based on her age. Is the case properly brought in federal court under 28 USC sec. 1331?
This case clearly arises under federal law under the Holmes test. The ADEA creates Barbie’s right to be free of age discrimination and expressly provides that employees who suffer such discrimination may sue for damages.
Although this case will not be litigating directly with a federal question, since it will be ruling on whether or not Mattel committed age discrimination NOT whether the ADEA is applicable, litigating in federal court is effective in the implementation of national policy (i.e. ensuring that Barbie receives a fair trial and that interpretation of federal statutes is just).
Mattel sues Barbie in state court for conversion (a state court claim) for removing confidential company records when she cleared out her office after being fired. Barbie counterclaims demanding damages from Mattel under the federal ADEA. Could the case be brought in (or removed to) federal court based on federal arising-under Jx?
In this case Mattel sues on a state law claim, and Barbie counterclaims against Mattel under federal law. The court will look at the PLAINTIFF’s claim to determine whether the case arises under federal law. Mattel’s claim clearly does not, so the case does not fit within the arising-under Jx.
Is there Diversity Jx?
Plaintiff: CA
Defendant: CA
Federal Dist. Court in Illinois
No, both plaintiff and defendant are from the same state so there is no diversity Jx.
Is there Diversity Jx?
Plaintiff: NY
Defendant: CA
Defendant: CA
Yes, only the plaintiff and the defendant must have differing Jxs.
Is there Diversity Jx? Plaintiff: NY Defendant: CA Defendant: FL Federal Dist. Court in CA.
Yes, all of the parties are from different states. Just because the plaintiff chose to sue in one of the defendant’s home states does not negate diversity.
Is there Diversity Jx? Plaintiff: NY Plaintiff: FL Plaintiff: MA Defendant: CA Defendant: CA Defendant: NY
No, there are NYers on both sides of the “v.”
Is there Diversity Jx?
Plaintiff: CA
Defendant: NY
Defendant: Great Britain
Yes. Although Art III does not specifically authorize this kind of case (i.e. a foreign defendant) it is a fair inference that a combination of the two is also proper. Congress has expressly authorized Jx in such cases in 28 USC sec. 1332(a)(3).
Is there Diversity Jx?
Plaintiff: CA
Defendant: NY
Defendant: Great Britain, but lives in CA and has not been admitted for permanent residence in the US.
Yes because the GB defendant cannot become a citizen of CA without first becoming a US citizen.
Archer (CA) sues Lana (CA) in federal court in CA for damages under the Federal Firearms Control statute. May the court hear the case?
Yes, under sec. 1331 - it’s a federal question, therefore the court may be heard in federal court in spite of both plaintiff and defendant being from CA.
Archer (CA) sues Figgis (NY) for breach of contract in state court. Can he do this?
Yes. Just because there is diversity Jx doesn’t mean that the plaintiff MUST sue in federal court. If Archer is suing in CA state court or NY state court different things need to be considered.
Archer (CA) sues Mother (FL) and Lana (CA). Archer’s claim against Mother is for defamation, a state law claim. His claim against Lana arises from the same incident, but is based on federal law. Will the federal court have Jx?
This suit is proper even though Archer and Lana are both from CA. Archer has a federal claim against Lana, a separate basis for suing her in federal court. Thus, he is not relying on diversity between himself and Lana as a basis for Jx. In determining diversity, you can disregard parties who are properly before the fed. court on another basis and focus on the art of the case for which diversity is argued as the basis for Jx.
Archer (CA) sues Mother (FL) in federal court for libel. A month later he amends his complaint to add a libel claim against Lana (CA) who co-authored the offending article. Will the federal court have Jx over the action?
No. The federal court will probably either refuse to allow the amendment or dismiss the action for lack of diversity Jx., since Archer’s amendment has “destroyed diversity” by adding a party from his home state. Even though the court had Jx over the action as originally filed, it must dismiss once the non-diverse party is added. Otherwise, the plaintiff would be able to gain access to federal court by suing diverse parties in the initial action and adding home-state defendants later on.
