Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Question 1

Will the amount in controversy be met if the plaintiff makes an unsupported claim for the minimum amount of damages specified by 1332(b)?

Answer 1

No, because although the damage amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith will generally control the party asserting Jx must set forth sufficient facts to support the claim.

Question 2

Will the amount in controversy requirement be satisfied by an unsupported claim for damages?

Answer 2

No - although the damage amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith will generally control in a diversity Jx. Assessment

Question 3

Does a corporations principal place of business, for diversity Jx, refer to the place where the corporations high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the company’s activities?

Answer 3

Yes, because federal diversity Jx provides that a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of a state in which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business

Question 4

Will a college students home state always be considered their state of residency?

Answer 4

No, residency rests on the fact of the students connection to the new state and intent to remain indefinitely

Question 5

Difenthal v. CAB

Answer 5

Diversity Jx. - application of amount in controversy rule

A couple purchased first class smoking area tickets, however, after boarding were told that the smoking area was full they would have to sit in non-smoking if they wished to fly first class. They alleged emotional distress.

Holding: amount in controversy was not met here because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how they had suffered anything more than a trivial loss.

Question 6

Gordon v. Steele

Answer 6

Diversity Jx. - domicile rule application

Where student brought a malpractice suit against two physicians in PA because of injury to wrist.

Holding: Student grew up in PA but moved to ID for college. She was considered a resident of ID for diversity purposes because she had significant activity there and did not intend to return to PA

Question 7

1332 (a)

Answer 7

Statute by which congress authorizes federal district courts to hear diversity cases

Question 8

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

Answer 8

Diversity Jx. - Rule

When the diversity statute was interpreted to require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Question 9

Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity v. Red Cab Co.

Answer 9

Diveristy Jx. - amount In controversy rule

The amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith will control for purposes of determining federal diversity Jx.

Holding: dismissal for failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement was only proper if it was a legal certainty that the claim is far less than the jurisdictional amount

Question 10

The nerve center test

Answer 10

The principle or or place of business that refers to the place where a corporations high level officers direct, control, and coordinate activities - a corporations total activities or the center of gravity for an organization

Question 12

Why does amount in controversy exist?

Answer 12

To avoid frivolous claims

Question 13

Requirements of Diversity Jx.

Answer 13

1. Parties must be from different states

2. Amount in controversy is over $75k

Question 14

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Answer 14

Diversity jx. - Corporate Diversity Rule

Two EEs of Hertz claimed violations of CA wage law, along with a potential class of other CA citizens who had suffered similar harms.

The nerve center test came out of this case

Holding: Hertz’s nerve center was in NJ but they were also incorporated in CA - no diversity jx.

Question 16

Can parties be considered diverse/from different states during anytime during the case proceedings?

Answer 16

No - diversity must exist on the day the complaint is filed.

Even if the parties were not diverse at the time the events giving rise to the claim occurred or later in the litigation process.

Question 16

Maas v. Perry

Answer 16

Diversity Jx. - domicile rule application

Apartment with two way mirrors - with students who were married and living in LA but were originally from MS and France.

Holding: A party who temporarily lives in one state but has permanent residence in another, is domiciled in the state where the permanent residence is located.

Question 17

1332 (c) (1)

Answer 17

Provides that a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of every state and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and where it has its principal place of business

Makes corporations local in states where their principal place of business is located - eliminating federal diversity suits between the corporation and citizens of that state

Question 18

The domicile test

Answer 18

1. An intent to remain indefinitely

2. Physical presence

Question 18

How is domicile determined?

Answer 18

By looking at a persons exercise of political rights, payment of personal taxes, house of residence, black of business/employment and etc.

Question 20

Is a party who currently resides in one state but does not intend to stay in that state, domiciled there for the purpose of diversity Jx?

Answer 20

No, because a party who temporarily lives in one state but has a permanent residence in another state is domiciled in the state where their permanent residence is located.

Question 20

The Saint Paul Mercury test ( or the good faith rule of thumb)

Answer 20

That a claim for more than the required amount will be accepted, if it appears to be made in good faith. Unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount

Question 21

What is the requirement for federal question jx?

Answer 21

A federal ingredient

A plaintiff must allege a cause of action based upon or which brings into question federal law or the constitution

Question 22

The Mottley Rule

Answer 22

Allows the court to determine its jurisdiction without demanding an immediate answer to the complaint or relying on the plaintiff’s representations about likely defenses

Question 23

1331

Answer 23

Congress grants jx to the federal district courts over all cases arising under the constitution, law or treaties of the U.S.

Question 24

1331 is similar to what provision in the constitution?

Answer 24

Article III, section 2 of the constitution - which authorizes jx. over cases arising under federal law

Question 25

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (facts)

Answer 25

Federal Question Jx. - Congressional statutory rule K with couple to give them free railroad passes for life because of a previous negligence injury caused by a train. they got their free passes for a while but then were declined for renewal because of the Hepburn Act passed by Congress which forbade the giving of free passes or free transportation

Question 26

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (holding)

Answer 26

Federal Quesiton Jx. - Congressional statutory rule It is not sufficient for federal jx. that the plaintiff anticipates that the defendant will raise a federal statute in defense - instead the plaintiffs well pleaded complaint must state that the defendant directly violated some provision of the constitution, laws or treaties of the U.S.

Question 27

Osborn v. Bank of The United States

Answer 27

Federal Question Jx. - Constitutional rule So long as there is a federal ingredient in the action and cites article III, section 2 of the constitution which authorizes jx. over cases arising out of federal law

Question 28

Gunn v. Minton

Answer 28

Federal Question Jx. - application of the rule Patent infringement suit, federal question jx. where state claims involve substantial question of federal law. Holding: finding exclusive federal jx. over state malpractice actions would disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Question 29

What is the rule/4 things needed for federal question jx. over a state law claim?

Answer 29

If a federal issue is: 1. Necessarily raised 2. Actually disputed 3. Substantial 4. Capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress (in most cases the first two factors will be met, so the analysis will focus on the last two)

Question 30

The Holmes Test (also called the creator test)

Answer 30

when a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action

Question 31

Under federal question jx. will it be enough that the federal issue be significant to the parties in the suit?

Answer 31

No because that will always be true. There has to be a substantial inquire that looks instead to the importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole.

Question 32

Grable v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

Answer 32

Federal Question Jx. - rule for when state law claims involve substantial questions of federal law An action to quiet title of property where to establish the state property law claim a proposition of federal law had to be proven Holding: only some cases involving embedded federal issues will qualify for arising under federal question jx.

Question 33

When may a lawsuit be removed from state court to federal court?

Answer 33

only if the federal court would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the claim

Question 34

What must the court ask when deciding whether removal is proper?

Answer 34

whether the plaintiff (who sued in state court) could have filed the action in federal court?

Question 35

What are the options when a court decides yes to remove or no to remove a case?

Answer 35

If yes, the defendant may usually remove If no, then the case should either be dismissed or remanded back to state court

Question 36

Is notice of removal automatic once filed?

Answer 36

yes. Even if it is determined that it is a non-removable case. It will be pending in federal court once the notice of removal is filed and the state court is notified.

Question 37

1441

Answer 37

authorizes removal of civil actions

Question 38

what is the purpose of removal?

Answer 38

Reflects the premise of equal access That a defendant should only be entitled to remove a case if the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff, could have been filed initially in a federal court.

Question 39

Can a defendant remove an action to any federal district they prefer?

Answer 39

No, the defendant can choose to remove to the federal system but does not get a choice to move the case to a different state/district than the one where it was originally filed. However, removal may still change the location of the original litigation if the federal district court is in a city some distance from the county where the state case was filed.

Question 40

1446(a)

Answer 40

The procedure for the removal of civil actions generally the defendant files a notice of removal in the federal court and notifies the plaintiff and the state in which such action is brought.

Question 41

1446(b)

Answer 41

Requirements for removal: 1. within 30 days of receiving the complaint (may be removed later than this considering amendments) 2. all defendants in suit must agree on removal

Question 42

What does allowing additional time for a removal accomplish when there had been an amendment to the original complaint?

Answer 42

Gives the defendant 30 more days to remove after receiving the amended pleading and removes the temptation from plaintiffs trying to engage in maneuvering of amendments.

Question 43

1292

Answer 43

Interlocutory decisions - where the courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from all final decisions of the district courts

Question 44

What is an interlocutory appeal?

Answer 44

An immediate appeal even though the case is still pending in the trial court - generally for the grant of a preliminary injunction which requires the party enjoined to do (or not do) something while the case is being litigated.

Question 45

can removal be waived?

Answer 45

yes - counsel may actually have tactical decisions to try and remove a case rather loose the chance to do so.

Question 46

Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.

Answer 46

Removal Suit filed in TX state court to recover monetary damages for alleged injuries to property caused by the defendant's oil and gas operations. Holding: removal was not appropriate here because the case could not haven been originally filed in a federal court and therefore could not be removed because the district court had no jx. over the subject matter of the complaint.

Question 47

FRCP 18

Answer 47

Joinder of a claim - allows a plaintiff to assert any claims they have against an opponent, whether related or unrelated.

Question 48

Will FRCP 18 ever give the first arrow in a suit?

Answer 48

No, because this is the joinder rule and the first arrow is just the first claim

Question 49

How does joinder of related claims assist in judicial economy?

Answer 49

It creates efficiency through the litigation process - if claims are litigated together they will likely all settle together too.

Question 50

What does initial joinder of parties ask?

Answer 50

Who can be made a proper plaintiff/defendant in a case

Question 51

FRCP 20(a)

Answer 51

Permissive joinder of parties - where multiple plaintiffs may join their claims against a single defendant in one lawsuit.

Question 52

The two requirements to rule 20(a)

Answer 52

so long as the claims arise out of: 1. the same transaction or occurrence 2. a common question of law or fact

Question 53

What is the purpose of allowing claims to join together when they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence?

Answer 53

to allow litigation of related claims together where they overlap in the evidence and it will promote convenience and efficiency.

Question 54

What is the purpose of allowing claims to join together when there is a common question of law or fact?

Answer 54

Because it places some limits on the plaintiff's choice This should be liberally interpreted and applied i practice when consistent with convenience of litigation Where the same transaction or occurrence test is met, it will be rare to find that this is not met.

Question 55

Does FRCP 20(a)(1) require plaintiffs to sue together if they have claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or there is a common question of law or facts?

Answer 55

No, it authorizes but doesn't require

Question 56

FRCP 20(a)(2)

Answer 56

states that defendants may be sued together if the same two criteria are met for the FRCP 20 requirements

Question 57

Does FRCP 20(a)(2) require plaintiffs to sue multiple defendants together if possible?

Answer 57

No, it authorizes but doesn't require

Question 58

The doctrine of preclusion (res judicata)

Answer 58

Generally bars a party who has sued a defendant once on a set of facts from doing so again. Thus, the decision not to join claims together at a certain time could have later consequences.

Question 59

FRCP 42

Answer 59

Consolidation, separate trials - authorizes a judge to order separate trials if needed

Question 60

What is the purpose of FRCP 42?

Answer 60

separate trials - for convenience and to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize when there are separate issues, claims, cross-claims, counterclaims or their -party claims.

Question 61

Why is there NOT a compulsory joinder rule?

Answer 61

because it would greatly constrict the plaintiff's choices and similar problems would arise if plaintiffs were forced to sue together

Question 62

Under the FRCP, may multiple plaintiffs join their claims against a singe defendant in one lawsuit if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence even where the claims involve factual dissimilarities?

Answer 62

Yes, because of FRCP rule 20(a) which allows multiple plaintiffs to join in a single lawsuit if theses two requirements are met arising out of: 1. the same transaction or occurrence 2. a common question of law or fact

Question 63

Holbein v. Heritage mutual Insurance Co.

Answer 63

Joinder - claims and parties - rule (FRCP 20 test) plaintiffs who were interviewed and hired for managerial positions but there were material misrepresentations of fact that were not disclose during the interview process. Holding: although all four claims were slightly different they all nonetheless arose out of similar interactions with the corporate defendant.

Question 64

FRCP 13

Answer 64

counterclaims and cross-claims - primarily governs compulsory counterclaims

Question 65

What is counterclaim as stated by FRCP 13(a)(1)

Answer 65

any claim against the opposing party of the claim The counterclaim that would otherwise be compulsory need not be asserted if it is the subject of another pending action

Question 66

What is the purpose of FRCP 13?

Answer 66

By making certain counterclaims compulsory, this enables a court to resolve all related claims in one action and avoids a wasteful multiplicity of litigation

Question 67

FRCP 14

Answer 67

Impleader/Third-Party Practice Where a defendant may impead any third party who may be liable to the defendant for part or all of the plaintiff's claim - even if the parties liability arises under different legal theories

Question 68

what is the purpose for FRCP 14?

Answer 68

To set a more restrictive standard for adding a new party to a suit

Question 69

What are the 4 things many courts consider when deciding a rule 14 motion?

Answer 69

1. the timeliness of the motion 2. the potential for complication of issues at trial 3. the probability of trial delay 4. whether the plaintiff may be prejudiced by the addition of other parties

Question 70

When can a defendant implead a third party?

Answer 70

within 10 days of filing an answer to the original complaint or any time with permissive leave of the court

Question 71

What is the FRCP's definition of transaction or occurrence?

Answer 71

The FRCP does not define either - even though the test is used in Rule 20 and rule 13 The concept of a single transaction or occurrence is often obvious but very hard to define even though a clear definition is needed.

Question 72

What are the 4 tests often involved when determining whether claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence (all are often driven by policy)?

Answer 72

1. Are the issues of fact and law raised in the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? 2. would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the party's counterclaim, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? 3. will substantially the same evidence support or refute the claim and the counterclaim? 4. is there a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim? (this is the broadest and most cases are explained by this one)

Question 73

What happens when there is a failure to state a compulsory counterclaim?

Answer 73

waiver and the party will be es-topped from later asserting the claim if there was awareness of the claim and had an opportunity to file before settlement.

Question 74

Will a party's failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim prevent that party from asserting the claim in a subsequent lawsuit?

Answer 74

yes, because if a party tries to do this they are estopped from asserting the same claim more than once.

Question 75

Under the FRCP, may a defendant impead a third party for contribution when the liability of the defendant and the third party are based on different legal theories?

Answer 75

yes, because of FRCP rule 14

Question 76

King v. Blanton

Answer 76

counterclaim case Where there was a car accident because one party ran a red light causing damage to both cars involved. King was represented by car insurance legal counsel - the parties settled and King tried to litigate again later. Holding: failure to file a compulsory counterclaim constituted a waiver and estopped her from bringing a new action based upon the same events that were at the heart of this complaint.

Question 77

Erkins v. Case Power & Equipment Co. (facts)

Answer 77

Impleader case Where a construction accident with an EE who was riding in a bucket of a truck fell out and under the wheels. Suit was for negligence against manufacturer for failing to provide adequate warning signs. The manufacturer impleaded the employers for lack of safety info to EE's.

Question 78

Erkins v. Case Power & Equipment Co. (Holding)

Answer 78

The third party party claims involved related issues that should be settled in a single lawsuit The joinder presented no potential for prejudice to plaintiffs (decedents estate) and no indication that the additional claims would unduly complicate the case - instead it would promote justice and judicial economy.

Question 79

FRCP 19

Answer 79

Necessary parties - persons required to be joined if feasible

Question 80

Under FRCP 19(a)(1) who is a required/necessary party?

Answer 80

a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jx.

Question 81

What are the 2 factors that determine when there is a required/necessary party under FRCP 19(a)(1)?

Answer 81

A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jx. must be joined as a party if: (a) in the person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties (b) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in their absence may impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest or leaves an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double or multiple inconsistent obligations because of the interest

Question 82

FRCP 19(b)

Answer 82

When joinder is NOT feasible/whether allowing the matter to go forward without joinder is appropriate

Question 83

What happens when a person who is required to be joinded by FRCP 19(a) cannot be?

Answer 83

The court must determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the existing parties or if is should be dismissed.

Question 84

What are the 4 factors the court considers when someone is required to be joined under FRCP 19(a) but cannot be?

Answer 84

1. the extent to which a judgement rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties 2. the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided 3. whether a judgement rendered int eh person's absence would be adequate 4. where the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for non-joinder

Question 85

Can the court order required parties under FRCP 19 to join?

Answer 85

Yes, FRCP 19(a)(2) - if a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.

Question 86

When does joinder, necessary parties, and venue intersect?

Answer 86

FRCP 19(a)(3) - if a joined party object to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss the party.

Question 87

FRCP 24

Answer 87

Intervention

Question 88

What are the 2 factors for when must a court permit anyone to intervene under FRCP 24?

Answer 88

On a timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: 1. is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute 2. has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact

Question 89

In federal court, is non-joinder of an indispensable party to the lawsuit grounds for dismissal?

Answer 89

Yes, because of FRCP 19

Question 90

Torrington v. Yost

Answer 90

FRCP 19 - Necessary Parties Employment contract no to dispose of trade secrets - an EE's new ER's rights with the EE could be severely impaired by a judgement favoring the old ER - could cause the EE to breach his employment contract with the new ER. Holding - the new ER was appropriately joined as a necessary party but joining them would destroy diversity jx. thus joinder was not feasible

Question 91

Does consideration of race as a factor in admission by a state school violate the 14th amendment?

Answer 91

No, because supporting student body diversity is a compelling state interest, however, the school must demonstrate is previously made a serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternative to achieve the sought after racial diversity.

Question 92

May a school use race as a factor in student admissions without violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

Answer 92

Yes, because courts have previously addressed the use of race as a consideration in higher education - the proper standard for reviewing this issue is strict scrutiny in the admissions process.

Question 93

Grutter v. Bollinger

Answer 93

FRCAP 24 - Intervention U of M law school followed an unofficial policy that sought to achieve student body diversity by giving substantial weight to the race of each applicant in making admissions decisions, in additional to its consideration of another academic and non-academic variable. Holding: The schools policy passed the courts strict scrutiny test here because it provided an individual and holistic review of each of its applicants.

Question 94

FRCP 1367

Answer 94

Supplemental Jx.

Question 95

FRCP 1376 (a)

Answer 95

Is there a common nucleus of operative facts? The district courts shall have supplemental jx. overall claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jx. that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III, section 2 of the constitutions. supplemental jx. shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.

Question 96

FRCP 1367(b)

Answer 96

When original jx. is founded solely on section 1332, the district courts shall not have supplemental jx. over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under rules 14, 19, 20 or 24 or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs.

Question 97

When might a district court decline to exercise supplemental jx. over a claim?

Answer 97

1. the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law 2. the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jx. 3. the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jx. 4. in exceptional circumstances, when there are other compelling reasons for declining jx.

Question 98

Can one plaintiff satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for all plaintiffs when other elements of diversity jx. are present?

Answer 98

Yes, the court may exercise jx. over other plaintiffs who might otherwise be properly joined but who do not allege damages which reach the jurisdictional amount.

Question 99

When other elements of diversity jx. are present and at least one named plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy requirement, may the court exercise jx over other plaintiffs?

Answer 99

Yes, because a failure for some claimants to meet the amount in controversy requirement does not affect the claims the way that, allowing a case tot stay in federal court when diversity jx. is destroyed would. federal courts may also exercise supplement jx over issues related to a case or controversy which the court already properly has jx.

Question 100

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services

Answer 100

Supplemental Jx. - application of the rule a class action of 10k Exxon dealers who brought suit because the company was overcharging them for fuel but some of the dealers damages did not rise to the amount required fro diversity jx. Holding: joinder was allowed because the unnamed members of a class action suit were not all required to meet there amount in controversy requirement, so long as at least one plaintiff did.

Question 101

Ortega v. Starkist Foods, Inc.

Answer 101

Supplemental Jx. - rule a 9 year old girl sued because of the unusually serious injuries she endured when she cut herself on a tuna can. the girl attempted to join her parents as plaintiffs. Holding: The parents damages were below the jx. amount and therefore could not be properly joined but the girls damages were sufficient to join the parents anyway.

Question 102

Gibbs v. United Mine Workers

Answer 102

find

Question 103

Ford Motor Company v. Bisanz Brothers, Inc.

Answer 103

find

Question 104

What is the difference between compulsory and permissive counterclaims?

Answer 104

FRCP 13(a) and 13(b) - having to bring a counterclaim (compulsory) vs. authorizing permission to bring a counterclaim in general (permissive)