SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Question 1

Basic Idea for SMJ and Question to ask for it:

Answer 1

This is about the court’s power over the claims in the action

We know P will sue D in State X. Now the question is: in what court in State X (state court or federal court)?

Question 2

State’s Jurisdiction to hear a case

Answer 2

State courts can hear any kind of case (minor exception below). They have “general” SMJ.

Question 3

What are cases that State Law cannot hear?

Answer 3

Cases arising under a few federal laws must be brought in federal court – e.g.,

• patent infringement,
• bankruptcy,
• some federal securities and antitrust claims.

But most cases arising under federal law can be heard by state courts.

Question 4

What are the two main types of cases that can be heard in federal court?

Answer 4

1. Diversity of Citizenship; or
2. Federal Question

Question 5

Diversity of Citizenship Cases

Answer 5

1. The case is either: the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) are “citizens of different states” (diversity) or between the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) are “a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country” (alienage) and
2. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Question 6

Who are the right kinds of litigants for a diversity or alienage case?

Complete Diversity Rule

Answer 6

Complete diversity rule. No good if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D

Question 7

Suppose we have an alien admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence (a so-called “green card” alien). She is domiciled in a U.S. state. Is she considered an alien or a citizen of that U.S. state?

Answer 7

Alien

• So litigation with her might invoke alienage, but not diversity.

Question 8

P (a U.S. citizen domiciled in Japan) sues D (CA) in federal court. OK?

• • Is there alienage?
• • Is there diversity of citizenship?

Answer 8

No alienage - because P is not an alien

No diversity, because P is not a citizen of a U.S.
state

Question 9

How do you establish a new domicile? It takes two things:

Answer 9

1. Physical presence (residence) there; and,
2. The intent to make that your permanent home indefinitely

(mere expression of an intention to move one’s residence, without actually moving, is not sufficient to establish a domicile)

Question 10

Relevant Factors for Intent to make a place your home

Answer 10

For intent, courts look to all relevant factors –

• like taking a job,
• buying a house,
• joining civic organizations,
• registering to vote,
• qualifying for instate tuition.

Question 11

P (OH) decides to move permanently to GA. She accepts a job in GA and tells everyone that she intends to live the rest of her life in GA. While driving to GA, she is involved in an auto collision in KY. She is hospitalized in KY. If
she sued now, what is P’s citizenship?

Answer 11

Ohio - because she has not been present in GA

Question 12

P (NJ) sues D (DC). After filing, P becomes a citizen of DC. Does that mean diversity is destroyed now that it’s DC versus DC?

Two Rules for this Hypo

Answer 12

No – diversity is OK.
There are two rules from this hypo:

1. We treat DC as a State
2. Test for diversity when the case is filed

Question 13

When do we determine domicile and when don’t we?

Answer 13

So we do not care what happens to citizenships after the case is filed or what the citizenships were before the case was filed.

Question 14

Citizenship of a corporation. What is/are the citizenship(s) of a corporation?

Answer 14

1) The State or Country where incorporated AND
2) The State or Country of its one PPB (“Nerve Center”)

Question 15

Citizenship of an unincorporated association (like partnership or limited liability company (LLC)). What is its citizenship?

Answer 15

The citizenship of all its members

Question 16

XYZ Partnership has partners who are citizens of 18 states. What is XYZ Partnership’s citizenship?

Answer 16

All 18 States

Question 17

Do we care where XYZ Partnership was formed or has its PPB?

Answer 17

No

Question 18

If it’s a limited partnership, do you include the citizenships of the general and the limited partners?

Answer 18

Yes, you include ALL partners

Question 19

Citizenship of decedents, minors, or incompetents

Answer 19

Such persons must sue or be sued through a representative.

The representative’s citizenship is irrelevant.

Use the citizenship of the decedent, minor, or incompetent.

Question 20

Amount in controversy.

Answer 20

In addition to complete diversity or alienage, P’s claim must exceed $75,000.

Question 21

Is there any limit on the number of claims that can be aggregated?

Answer 21

No

Question 22

Equitable relief.

P sues D for an injunction to tear down part of his house that blocks P’s view. Two tests; if either is met, most courts say it’s OK:

Answer 22

1. Plaintiff’s viewpoint: does the blocked view decrease the value of plaintiff’s property by more than $75,000?
2. Defendant’s viewpoint: would it cost defendant more than $75,000 to comply with the injunction?

Question 23

Exclusions

Answer 23

Exclusions – even if the requirements for a diversity or alienage case are met, federal courts decline to hear some cases.

1) Divorce
2) Alimony
3) Child Custody
4) To probate & estate

Question 24

Federal Question Cases.

Answer 24

The claim in P’s complaint “arises under” federal law (e.g.,
federal constitution, legislation).

Question 25

“Well pleaded complaint” rule.

Answer 25

It is not enough that some federal issue is raised by the
complaint. The P’s claim itself must “arise under” federal law. So we look at the claim and ignore other material P alleged.

Ask: Is the P enforcing a Federal Right? (A federal law is not enough)

Question 26

Once a case is properly in federal court (under diversity or FQ), do we have to test every single additional claim for federal subject matter jurisdiction?

Answer 26

Yes

So every single claim in federal court must have federal subject matter jurisdiction. If it does not, it cannot be asserted in the pending case in federal court. That means that every single additional claim is tested to see if it invokes:

• Diversity
• FQ

Question 27

Federal Common Law

Answer 27

Erie means there is no GENERAL federal common law. So
the general common law of contracts, torts, and property is STATE law, and federal courts must apply that state substantive law.

But there are areas in which federal courts are free to make up common law on their own.

Question 28

Supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 28

The type of jurisdiction a federal court with original jurisdiction over at least one claim in an action may have over certain other claims in the same action for which no original jurisdiction exists

Question 29

Supplemental jurisdiction (Federal Question)

Answer 29

A court may exercse supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse state law claim as long as the additional claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
(Applies to a plaintiff or defendant)

Question 30

Supplemental jurisdiction (Diversity cases)

Answer 30

Plaintiffs:
- No plaintiff can bring a supplemental claim that would destroy complete diversity between adverse parties

Existing Plaintiffs:
- An existing plaintiff that later seeks to add a nondiverse state claim against one or more defendants is not eligible for supplemental jurisdiction

Defendants:
- All defendant’s factually related state law claims can be brought under the court’s supplemental jurisdiction (includes cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims)
- Do not need to meet the complete diversity requirement or AIC requirement

Question 31

Removal jurisdiction

Answer 31

The type of jurisdiction a federal court may have over a claim, in which the defendant is afforded the opportunity to overturn the plaintiff’s choice of a state court forum, where the state court action initially could have been filed in federal court because it contains a claim over which the federal court has original jurisdiction

Question 32

Forum-Defendant Rule

Answer 32

The rule that bars removal of a state court action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the state court action was filed

Question 33

Unanimity (Removal)

Answer 33

The rule that all defendants who have been properly served in a state court action in which all claims are removable to federal court must join in or consent to the removal.