Subject Matter Jurisdiction Cases Flashcards
After husband granted motion to divorce, two years later, wife moved to vacate saying there wasn’t SMJ since he wasn’t a resident of New York for full year before starting action
Is there SMJ?
No. The state law that the wife sites does not discuss jurisdiction. residency was merely an element of the action.
Lack of SMJ to make a final judgment absolutely void is not applicable to cases which do not involve jurisdiction, but are merely substantive elements of a cause of relief.
- cannot collaterally attack if there is no SMJ
Lacks v. Lacks (1976)
Couple of grad assistants at Louisiana State University, but had a home in Mississippi and planned on returning after programs ended. In Louisiana, they rented an apartment that had two-way mirrors and landlord spying on them.
Can D claim that Ps did not prove diversity of citizenship when they filed suit against him for spying on them in the apartment they rented, although P were not Louisiana citizens and only grad students at LSU at the time?
No. Ps were domiciled in Mississippi not Louisiana so there was diversity of citizenship (D being a Mississippi citizen)
Diverse citizenship must be present of the time the complaint was filed. A party who temporarily lives in one state but as permanent residence in another domicile in the state where their permanent residence is located.
Domicile = place of true, fixed and permanent home and principal establishment… changed by (a) taking up residence in a different domicile with (b)with the intention to remain there
- Whenever you cannot establish an intent to remain, defaults to your former domicile
MAs v. Perry (1974)
Former employee quit job and took with him client list and started his own tour company.
Is dismissal premature after summary judgment of a traveling tour company claim to seek $50,000 in damages from their former employee who misappropriate their trade secrets (client lists) when he started his own company ?
Yes. The amount raise was sua sponte had a pretrial or oral argument with no prior notice and the court dismissed suit at the end of oral argument. P should be allowed to support its claim that the recovery would’ve been over $50,000 to meet the SMJ threshold.
If some of total damages is a good Faith number then the burden of pleading is satisfied . Good faith is determined by the damages estimate with some basis of fact known to P at time of the complaint.
- pro-diversity jurisdiction standard which place is burden on P and requires quite a bit to get out of federal court
A.F.A Tours, Inc. v. Whitchurch (1991)
mcCulloch v. MD CONFIRMED Congress could have a national bank that could NOT be taxed by states. Ohio put tax on Bank of US. bank started action in federal court for temporary injunction against state tax collection by Ohio State. Auditor disregarded, taking $$ —> federal court ordered Ohio auditor to return it to bank. Ohio argued the court lacked, subject matter jurisdiction—did they?
No. Authorization was to sue and be sued was granted by Congress to federal courts of jurisdiction all cases to which bank was a party. Any issue involving the bank grows out of and tested by federal law—the federal ingredient has to be present under laws of US.
- federal courts have original jurisdiction over any matter that involves a federal question
- Federal entities can sue and be sued in federal court
- Federal question jurisdiction if federal issue = “original ingredient” of case
Osborne v. Bank of the United States (1824)
Under Osborne, Congress may confer on the federal courts jurisdiction over any case or controversy that might call for the application of federal law —> did not define the precise boundaries of article 3 jurisdiction
To get into federal court, you need to apply federal foreign sovereign immunity to determine if jurisdiction is permissible
Federal Sovereign Immunity Act = creates federal SMJ for suits against foreign states that aren’t barred by sovereign immunity
- reaffirming federal ingredient idea— whether statute is appropriate
Verlinden v. Central Bank of Nigeria
D had copyright claims to a song use an emotion picture. Instead of executing them to the principal stockholder, he assigned them to a third-party. Stockholder brought copyright infringement claims and alleged its own New York incorporation was proper, did not alleged citizenship of diversity for D which is New York.
Is there SMJ under the Copyright Act?
No, there is no claim of copyright and infringement just ownership. Is merely a property and contract issue and therefore falls under state law, not the copyright act.
The challenges beyond with a lot of article 3 jurisdiction —> jurisdiction is unconstitutional. We need a narrower interpretation of federal law.
T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu (1964)
P was injured on Dee’s train. D settled claims with a lifetime pass for free transportation on its line. Congress passed an act that forbade granting free transportation —> railroad refused to renew P’s pass. P sued saying Act did not apply to their pass.
Dismissed. it is not sufficient that P anticipates that defendant will raise a federal statute in defense. P’s well-pleaded complaint must state D directly violated some provision of the constitution laws or treaties of the US.
P’s complaint may show basis for federal question jurisdiction “on its face”— there must be a cause of action.
- defenses and other responses cannot raise the federal question
- “Piercing the pleadings” to smoke out “artful pleading”
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Motley (1908)
P brought declaratory suit that certain contracts were still in effect because a necessary federal certificate has been timely issued, although made public later (terminated because thought the contracts expired).
Can declaratory complaint, by anticipating the federal defense, satisfy the statutory test for federal jurisdiction?
No. cannot use artful pleading, “an attempt by P to create federal jurisdiction through the anticipation and inclusion of a federal defense on the face of its complaint in an action brought under the declaratory judgment act.
Declaratory Judgment Act does not create an in-around around a well-pleaded complaint for P.
declaratory judgment act allows federal court to issue a declaration of “rights and other legal relations” to an “interested party” in a “case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction”
- the act only creates a remedy, NOT jurisdiction
- federal court can hear a declaratory action only if the corresponding coercive action (seeking money damages or injunction) could invoke jurisdiction
Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1950)
P, a drug manufacturer, sued D in state court on a number of state law claims including per se negligence on the theory that D had failed to comply with labeling requirements under a federal statute. D removed the action from state court to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction—was there?
No. Congress had not created a private right of action to enforce the federal labeling requirement and federal interest was too insubstantial.
- tries to reconcile Smith and Moore
Dissent: federal courts have much more expertise analyzing federal legislation, and while it may lead to increase volume in federal courts, it’s not appropriate to trim the statue.
The federal court does not have jurisdiction over state law causes of action which implicate a federal law with no private cause of action.
Implications
- More of a textualist court, no implied private right of action
- even more unclear how to get into scope of 1331
Merrel Down Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson (1986)
Shareholder sued to prevent D from investing in federal bonds on ground that Act of Congress authorizing their issuance was unconstitutional. Cause of action created by state law. Who has jurisdiction?
Cause of action arose under the constitution 1331 scope so federal court will decide if claims are unconstitutional.
Where it appears at the right to relief depends on the constitution, then the District Court (federal court) has jurisdiction .
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. (1921)
P brought action under Kentucky’s employer liability act which barred affirmative defense for contributory negligence or assumption of risk if D failed to meet state or federal safety requirements. P alleged D’s failure to comply with the Federal Safety Appliance Act.—is there FQJ?
No. A suit brought under state statue that covers liability to employees injured while engaged in interstate commerce and touches on statute of breach of the duty imposed by federal statute should NOT be cognizable in federal court.
Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (1934)
IRS siezed Michigan property of P because of their federal tax delinquency. They receive notice as required by IRS by mail before IRS sold property to D. 5years later, P brought quiet title action to state court saying D’s record title is invalid because IRS failed to notify P of siezure in the correct manner (in person). D moved to federal question because of federal tax law.
With claims of title to land obtained a federal sale, can a party moved to federal court of a state of action with non-diverse parties raising a disputed issue of federal title law ?
Yes, national interest, and providing federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support exercise the federal question jurisdiction over disputed issue on removal, which would not distort any division of labor between states and federal courts.
The Grable Test: a federal court may have jurisdiction over a state cause of action if the action has a:
- Federal issue that’s contested
- Federal issue that substantial, and
- federal subject matter jurisdiction that’s consistent with congressional judgment about the division of labor between state and federal courts
- state courts do most of the work, so Congress tries to preserve this.
- if there’s a greater departure of the division, Congress needs to provide more evidence of the congressional intent
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (2005)
P represented by D in a federal patent infringement action where patent was declared invalid. P then sued his attorney for malpractice and on appeal argued D had failed to raise the “experimental use”!exception under federal patent law leading his infringement claim to fail.
Whether a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in the handling of a patent case must be brought in federal court ?
No. This case is not substantial to the federal system because it has no real world consequences—the state court analysis of the federal patent issue is entirely hypothetical.
Resolution about hypothetical question of patent law is not substantial enough to mandate federal
- reinforces Grable’s test
- Fact-bound issues usually aren’t substantial enough to give rise to federal questions
Gunn v. Minton (2013)
Involved a federal statute establishing a system allowing minors to resolve conflicting claims to land patents— the right to possession was to be determined by the local customs or rules of minors in the several mining districts, not inconsistent with federal law. Was there FQJ?
Suit did not arise under federal law due to 1331: “ there is no question to the effect of the constitution or law of US, but simply presents a question of fact to time of discovery of mineral location of the claim on the ground or determine determination of meaning and effect of certain local rules and customs by minors of district.”
For subject-matter jurisdiction, a suit to enforce a state law right that originates in federal law does not arise under the constitution or federal law.
Shoshone Mining Co. v Ritter (1900)
Supreme Court held that federal statute establishing benefit plans for federal employees gave the insurance company a right of action against the US, but not against the insured —> not under federal law 1331
How to do the inquiry test?
- No federal law for individual employees that creates a cause of action.
- [Since no federal cause of action, skip to 3]
- Insurance policy is usually a state law issue, but when a contractors with the federal government rules, our government by federal common law, federal courts common law.
- What will federal contract company mean in terms of the claim; not substantial enough because it doesn’t involve the insurance company party
Dissent: insurance company’s claim involved federal contract governed by federal common law and “federal common law” means federal jurisdiction where Congress intends
Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh
