Subject Matter Jurisdiction Flashcards
Complete diversity
No plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.
Amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction
Must exceed $75,000. Determined from the plaintiff’s good faith allegation (dismissed if no legal possibility of a recovery exceeding $75k). Never retroactively defeated if actual recovery is less (but plaintiff who wins less may have to pay D’s litigation “costs”).
Collateral consequences of the judgment not considered, except attorneys’ fees recoverable by contract or statute, or interest that constitutes part of the claim itself.
Punitive damages claims permitted under state substantive law counted in meeting dollar amount.
Interpleader exception for diversity jurisdiction
minimal diversity and an amount in controversy of $500 or more is sufficient
Alienage jurisdiction
Federal courts have jurisdiction over a dispute between a citizen of the U.S. and an alien. EXCEPT: if alien has been admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence and is domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen-opponent.
No jurisdiction over an action by an alien against an alien. Aliens may appear as additional parties as long as there are citizens of the US on both sides too.
When is diversity analyzed?
At the time the suit is instituted.
Defining citizenship for individuals versus corporations versus unincorporated associations and LLCs
Individuals: domicile–physical presence and intent to remain
Corporations: every state in which it is incorporated and one state in which it has its PPB (PPB=place from which its high level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities, usually its corporate headquarters).
Corporation might simultaneously be an alien and citizen of another state. Look for aliens on both sides=no jurisdiction.
Unincorporated associations and LLCs: citizen of each state of which any member is a citizen
Legal representatives and diversity jurisdiction
Deemed to have the same citizenship as the person who they are representing
Class action diversity
Determined on the basis of citizenship of the named representatives
Derivative suit diversity
Courts realign the corporation as defendant to determine diversity
Supplemental jurisdiction inquiry
1) common nucleus of operative fact as the claim that invoked original federal SMJ
2) in a diversity case, claim not brought by the original plaintiff against a non-diverse defendant
Aggregation of separate claims for amount in controversy
A single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant, even if unrelated. Unless jointly liable to plaintiff, s/he may not aggregate claims against several defendants.
Multiple plaintiffs may only aggregate if they are seeking to “enforce a single title or right in which they have a common or undivided interest”
Erie Doctrine
A federal court sitting in diversity will apply its own procedural law, but must apply the substantive law of the forum state.
Inquiry:
1) Federal law on point? If so, it applies, providing it is valid under the REA.
2) If no federal statute or rule on point, is the issue substance or procedure?
Substance: statutes of limitations, rules for tolling SOLs, choice of law rules, elements of a claim or defense.
Outcome determinative test: substantive if it substantially affects the outcome
Balance of interest test: if state has a greater interest, issue is substantive
Forum shopping deterrence: if failing to apply state law would increase litigation in federal court, substantive.
NOTE: possible to apply state substantive provisions and federal procedure if statute or rule contains both.
Federal common law
Two circumstances:
1) Interpretation of federal statute or Constitution
2) Filling gaps in federal regulatory schemes (court may borrow standard used by a majority of states if uniformity necessary, or borrow standard of a state if parties expect state law to apply)
Implied rights of action based on federal statute
Factors:
1) whether the plaintiff belongs to a class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted
2) whether evidence of legislative intent supported an implied remedy (NEED STRONG LEGISLATIVE INTENT)
3) whether such a remedy would be consistent with the underlying purposes of legislative scheme
4) whether a remedy should not be implied because the cause of action was one traditionally relegated to state law
Implied rights of action based on the Constitution
Implied causes of action for damages against federal officials for violation of particular constitutional rights (Bivens Actions)
Won’t recognize when alternate federal statutory remedies exist
