Subject Matter Jurisdiction -The issue is whether the defendant can remove the present case to Federal Court -The federal court has subject matter jurisdiction if: 1) the face of the complaint contains a federal question, or 2) there is diversity jurisdiction -The complaint contains a federal question if on its face there is a claim arising out of federal law, statute, or the Constitution -Here, the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction because [federal question] is a federal question Diversity Jurisdiction -The issue is whether defendant can remove the present case to Federal Court by filing for diversity jurisdiction -Under Title 28 USC 1332, a case may be brought to federal court when: 1) both parties are from different states; or 2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 -Here, none of the parties are from the same state -Here, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 -Parties will not be able to join parties if it will defeat the complete diversity requirement for diversity jurisdiction Supplemental Jurisdiction -The case at hand is an issue of supplemental jurisdiction. The original lawsuit X filed against Y contained both a federal question claim [federal claims] and state law claims [state law claims] -Under Title 28 USC 1367, a federal district court may hear any action with which it holds original jurisdiction. In addition, the court may also choose to hear any claims for which it did not have original jurisdiction as long as these claims arise from a sufficient nexus or “common nucleus of facts.” -Here, the federal district court had original jurisdiction over the federal claim, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because both claims arose from the same nucleus of facts. -Both claims...[same nucleus of facts] -Therefore, the federal district court had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367. -However, subsection (c) provides that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim for many reasons -Under 28 USC 1367(c)(3), a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” -Here, all federal law claims have been dismissed, and thus all claims the federal court has original jurisdiction over have been dismissed -Under the provisions of subsection (c) it is completely under the court’s discretion whether it should remand the remaining claims to state court -Therefore, it is necessary to assess policy considerations and reasoning to decide whether this case should continue to trial in federal district court -Federal courts are reserved as a precious resource. They should be used only when absolutely necessary in order to preserve a fair and just trial -Allowing a state law claim to remain in federal court would require the federal court to assess state law at length and apply the substantive state law during the trial 1 -This would require a greater amount of time and thus would be more costly in terms of using the federal court as a precious resource -Furthermore, requiring the federal court to apply state substantive law provides greater room for error -The state court is a better expert on state substantive law -Another policy issue to consider is preserving the due process of law to a fair and expedient trial -Here, remanding the case to state court would/would not affect the parties right to a due process of law because state courts are better suited for the remaining state law claims for [claims] than federal courts -Therefore, in order to preserve the federal court’s time and efficiency, and to provide the case with the proper court system to adjudicate the matters of law at hand, it is my recommendation that the case be remanded to the proper state court Personal Jurisdiction -The issue is whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the parties -For personal jurisdiction, a court needs both constitutional and statutory authority to exercise power over the parties -As a constitutional matter, personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that the assertion of power does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” -the minimum contacts test requires purposeful availment; that is, the defendant must have acted purposefully toward the forum state -Here, -If a court has general jurisdiction over a person, it has power over the person regardless of whether the claim arose out of contacts with the forum state -The court has general personal jurisdiction over a individual party if they are domiciled in the forum state -Here, -The court has personal jurisdiction over a corporation in any state in which the corporation is incorporated or headquarters, or where the corporation has a systematic, continuous, and substantial presence in the state -If a court has specific jurisdiction over a party, then it has power over the person with regard toa claim that arose out of the party’s contact with the forum state -The constitutional test for specific jurisdiction is based on business relationships with the forum state, effects in the forum state, placing products into the stream of commerce, and other situations -even if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, a court may reject personal jurisdiction on the grounds that the assertion of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, taking into account the plaintiff’s interest, the burden on the defendant, and the forum state’s interest -Here, the fact that [factory/office building/etc.] is enough to establish the company’s substantial presence in the [state] 2 -Specific jurisdiction over a party is determined by the party’s business relationships with the forum state, effects in the forum state, placing products into the stream of commerce, and others situations -However, even if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state a court may reject personal jurisdiction on the grounds that the assertion of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, taking into account the plaintiff’s interest, the burden on the defendant, and the forum state’s interest -The court may attach property of a defendant in a forum state -Parties may consent to personal jurisdiction by contract, by appointment of an agent for service of process, or by making a general appearance in court -Due process requires that parties be notified of a proceeding against them, and that the notice be reasonably calculated to reach them -forum selection clauses -tag jurisdiction: defendant passing through forum state served with summon -Rule 4- service of process -Rule 4(k)(1)(B): hundred mile bulge provision expands a federal court’s reach to bring in thirdparty defendants under Rule 14 or Rule 19 International Shoe -In International Shoe, the court held that For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a judgment in personam, due process requires that he have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice -A state may subject a corporation to in personam jurisdiction where the corporation has such minimum contacts with the state as to make it reasonable to require the corporation to defend a suit there. -A corporation is deemed to be “present” in a state for jurisdiction purposes when the activities of the corporation in that state have been continuous and systematic. -Due process is violated where a state makes a binding judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations. -However, to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, giving rise to certain obligations, it is not unduly burdensome to require a corporation to respond to a suit brought within the state to enforce those obligations. -In the present case, X’s activities in [state] were systematic and continuous and resulted in a large volume of interstate business. -Indeed, the obligation upon which this suit is based arose out of those activities. Venue -Under 28 USC 1391(b), a case can be brought in a judicial district in which any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state 3 -Under 28 USC 1391(b), a case can be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial party of property that is the subject of the action is situated -Otherwise, venue will be based upon where the relevant events occurred -Under 28 USC 1404, for the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented -Under 28 USC 1406, the court may transfer a case from an improper venue to a proper venue -Under 28 USC 1407, the court may transfer multiple cases to a single federal district court for coordinated pretrial handling -According to the Van Dusen rule, the transferee court court must apply the same law that the transferor court would have applied -In Piper, the court provided a three-part analysis for forum non-conveniens that considers: 1) adequate alternative forum, 2) private interest factors, and 3) public interest factors -First the court must determine whether an alternative forum has personal jurisdiction over the defendants and whether the case would be barred by the statute of limitations -Private interest factors include the location of the parties, witnesses, and evidence -Here, the parties are located -Here, the witnesses are located -Here, the evidence is located -Public interest factors evaluate which forum has a greater interest in the dispute, and which forum would offer a more efficient and appropriate use of judicial resources -When a court dismisses a case for improper venue, the dismissal is not considered on the merits for the purposes of claim preclusion -Venue statutes limit the choice of permissible forums for a lawsuit -For a court to adjudicate a lawsuit, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the action, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, and the venue must be proper under the applicable venue statute -A federal district court may transfer an action to a different district in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as long as the transferee district in one where venue and jurisdiction are proper or to which the parties consent Forum Non Conveniens -The issue is whether the court should decline jurisdiction because an alternate, more convenient jurisdiction exists 4 -Under the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens, a court may decline jurisdiction if an alternate jurisdiction is more convenient to hearing the matter -The doctrine of of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action, even if jurisdiction and venue are proper, based on the availability of an alternative forum where it makes more sense for the action to be brought -Here, an alternative forum exists in [location] -It is debatable as to where it makes more sense for the action to be brought to [new location] rather than keep it in [old location] -On one hand… -On the other hand… -In Piper, the court held that A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the present forum. -Here, the plaintiff is similar to the plaintiff in Piper because... -In Piper, the court provided a three-part analysis for forum non-conveniens that considers: 1) adequate alternative forum, 2) private interest factors, and 3) public interest factors -First the court must determine whether an alternative forum has personal jurisdiction over the defendants and whether the case would be barred by the statute of limitations -Private interest factors include the location of the parties, witnesses, and evidence -Here, the parties are located -Here, the witnesses are located -Here, the evidence is located -Public interest factors evaluate which forum has a greater interest in the dispute, and which forum would offer a more efficient and appropriate use of judicial resources -A federal district court may transfer an action to a different district in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as long as the transferee district in one where venue and jurisdiction are proper or to which the parties consent -Therefore, the court should/should not transfer the action [location] Joinder of Claims -Under Rule 18, a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party -Essentially, a party is permitted an unlimited joinder of claims even if they are not related 5 -Under Rule 13(a) a pleading party must state as a counterclaim any claim that at the time of its service the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction -Rule 20 -Under Rule 42(a), if actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact the may: 1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; 2) consolidate the actions -Under Rule 42(b), a court may order separate trials of any claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or even of separate issues for convenience to avoid prejudice or to expedite and economize Joinder of Parties -Under Rule 20(a)(1), persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action -same transaction = logical relationship -same factual origin -court has discretion to prohibit joinder of parties if they believe it will lead to prejudice to parties, confusion of jury, or burden on court -if similar legal and factual issues and same evidence and arguments exist between party, the more likely the court will allow joinder of parties -the biggest consideration in allowing or prohibiting joinder is the burden a joinder of parties would put on the court -if joining parties could consolidate cases for federal court without creating difficulty that would otherwise prolong the trial longer than two separate trials, then joinder should be allowed Joinder of Claims by Defendant -Rule 13: arose out of the same transaction or occurrence -Under Rule 14, the defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may serve a summons a complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it -Essentially, the defendant join a third-party as asserts a claim against that party for indemnification or contribution in the case in which the defendant is held liable to the original plaintiff -The court will reject a third-party claim if it does not involve some sort of secondary or derivative liability -Third party claims do not require the defendant to admit liability on the underlying claim. Rather, third-party claims are conditional on the grounds that if defendant is found liable, then the third-party defendant is required to reimburse the defendant all or part of the defendant’s liability Compulsory Joinder -Under Rule 19, parties who are so inextricably tied to the case that their absence could create real problems are required to be joined to the claim 6 -If a party is required under Rule 19(a) but the court lacks personal jurisdiction over that party, then the court must decide under RUle 19(b) whether the case should be dismissed -There are three circumstances under which -must be brought now or never -a counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim and the court has jurisdiction over any required added parties -the purpose of compulsory joinder is to unite claims based upon the same facts -whether there is a logical relationship between the claims -Here, there is/is not a logical relationship between the claims -same transaction test -same cause of action because both facts Impleader -Rule 14 -party joins a third party into a lawsuit because that third party is liable to an original defendant if that defendant is found liable Interpleader -Rule 22 -When a holder of a disputed property desires an adjudication of which claimants, if any, are entitled to the property, the stakeholder may use interpleader to join all of the claimants in a single proceeding, and the federal interpleader statute facilitates such joinder by relaxing the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue -allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts. -An interpleader proceeding has two stages. The first stage determines if the stakeholder is entitled to an interpleader and if he should be discharged from liability. The second stage is like an action at law to determine which of the claimants is entitled to the money or other property in controversy Claim Preclusion -Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, res judicata, a valid final judgment on the merits precludes relitigation of the same claim between the same parties 7 -A claim will be barred by prior litigation if all four of the following elements are present: 1) there is a final judgement on the merits, 2) the decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, 3) the parties, or those in privity with them, are identical in both suits, 4) the same cause of action is involved in both cases -Here, the judgment is/is not final -Here, the judgment is on merits -Judgment for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and party joinder is not on the merits -12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits -default judgment is on the merits -Rule 41(b): involuntary dismissal not on the merits unless with prejudice -Rule 60(b) -Therefore, the judgment was final -Here, the decision was/was not rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction -The court had/did not have jurisdiction over the parties and/but had/did not have jurisdiction over the claims -Therefore, the judgment was valid -To establish whether a claim should be precluded from present litigation, it is necessary to determine whether the issue at hand is indeed the same issue that has been previously decided -Here, the claims were the same -Here the [same evidence/primary rights/transactional] test applies -same evidence test: whether the same evidence could be used to prove each of the claims -primary rights test: whether the same rights are involved in the two actions -transactional test: whether claim asserted in the second lawsuit arose out of the same underlying factual situation as the first; if so then same claim for purposes of claim preclusion -Under the transactional test, if the second claim arose out of the same underlying factual situation as the first, then it is the same claim for the purposes of claim preclusion -Under the transactional test, “same claim” for the purposes of claim preclusion means any claim that could have been brought in the first action and that arises out of the same underlying facts -A claim has the same cause of action as another claim when both claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact -Here, -Therefore, the claims were the same -every state court uses res judicata -federal court uses state res judicata rules; not necessarily the federal rules -privity: -Therefore, the parties were the same -All four elements of claim preclusion are satisfied. Therefore, the claim should be precluded -The goals of claim preclusion are efficiency, finality, and avoidance of inconsistency -Preclusion ensures that the plaintiff only gets “one bite of the apple”, so to speak, because one shot at presenting a case prevents potentially endless litigation around the same issues -whether essential to the judgement -Valid, final judgments are given preclusive effect in other state and federal courts under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution 8 -Full Faith and Credit Clause and statute require courts within the United States to give preclusive effect to judgments from other states, and federal common law requires them to respect federal court judgments Issue Preclusion -Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, an issue of law or fact that has already been determined against a party may be taken as conclusive in a subsequent action -For issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been actually litigated and determined,and the determination must have been essential to the judgment -Valid, final judgments are given preclusive effect in other state and federal courts under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution -Mutual: permits issue that has been decided in prior case to be conclusive in present case -Non-mutual offensive: permits but scrutinize to make sure fair -Non-mutual defensive: court permits -opportunity to litigate that issue -nonmutual issue preclusion is permitted as long as the party to be bound was a party to the prior action and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue -offensive may be rejected if the new party could easily have joined the first action, if the stakes in the first action were insufficient, or if there have been inconsistent determinations of the issue Pleading -Under Rule 8, a complaint in federal court must state the basis for jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim, and a demand for judgment -allegations of fraud must be pleaded with particularity -in the answer, the defendant must respond to each allegation by admitting it, denying it, or stating that the defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation 9 -in the answer, a defendant may assert affirmative defenses, which are waived if not asserted -a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or within 21 days or the other party’s response; or a party may amend its pleading withy the adverse party’s consent or by leave of court -if the statute of limitations has expired on a claim that a pleader wishes to add by amendment, but would have been timely if asserted in the original pleading, the amendment may be permitted if the claim “relates back” to the original pleading -Rule 11 sanctions for pleading -Rule 12 affirmative defenses -Rule 12(h)(1): lack of personal jurisdiction -Rule 12(h)(3): subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived Twombly/Iqbal -Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief -The complaint must show actual factual allegations and not just contain conclusory statements -Under Twombly/Iqbal, the plausibility standard was introduced and applies to all FRCP cases -Twombly: plausibility standard -Iqbal: plausibility standard applies to all FRCP cases -In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court considers: face of the complaint, documents attached to/referenced in complaint, and judicial notice -Court must consider all factual allegations taken as true, which include the circumstances, events, and actions in the present claim, and determine whether it is plausible that plaintiff may be entitled to relief -However, the court does not have to consider legal allegations as true -A legal allegation recites the elements of a claim, and asserts that they happened -To determine plausibility of a claim, first the court must see if the complaint asserts any real facts -If the complaint does not assert any factual allegations, then the complaint must be dismissed -However, if the complaint does contain factual allegations, the court must determine whether the facts state a facially plausible claim -If the facts do state a facially plausible claim, then the complaint must be sustained -In this case, the complaint must state specific circumstances, events, and actions that if taken as true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief -Otherwise, if the facts do not state a facially plausible claim, then the complaint must be dismissed -Plausible allegations allow the court to make a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable under a legitimate legal theory -A plausible claim must be more than just speculative or possible, but it does not necessarily have to be probable -Racial discrimination claims: Swanson -Swanson -before a judge dismiss might be discovery; whether this is a case where more discovery appropriate 10 -would open the flood gates to allow for more claims of this sort -waste of court’s time to proceed with discovery for every case that does not facially meet plausibility standard -plaintiff’s burden to follow Rule 8(a) -plaintiff can refile proper complaint with factual allegations that logically support claim Iqbal standard for affirmative defense The question is whether Iqbal should apply to affirmative defenses as a matter of law Under Iqbal… Most courts have concluded that affirmative defenses need not satisfy the plausibility standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal. the standard should be different because the rules are different; whereas those pleading a claim for relief must make a “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” those pleading a defense or affirmative defense must only “state in short and plain terms its defenses” and “affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (claims), 8(b)(1)(A) (defenses), 8(c)(1) (affirmative defenses). Because the Supreme Court’s discussion of the plausibility standard hinged on the requirement that claims be “shown,” and because affirmative defenses can be “stated” without being “shown,” most courts have found that affirmative defenses should not be held to that higher standard. Some have also explained that the Supreme Court’s concerns about “unlock[ing] the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions” do not apply to affirmative defenses because the plaintiff has already unlocked those doors himself. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Others have noted that it would be unfair to hold defendants to a plausibility standard because whereas plaintiffs may file their complaints after months or even years of investigation, defendants must file their answers within 21 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). -put all counterclaims because can't raise later -burden of persuasion is on the plaintiff Erie Doctrine -Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction (or in general, when hearing state law claims in contexts like supplemental jurisdiction) must apply state substantive law and federal procedural law to resolve claims under state law -Under Erie, on state law claims, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law -Unless a specific federal statute or rule applies, the federal court must apply state substantive law 11 -If a valid federal statute or rule directly addresses an issue, thena fderal corut must apply that statute or rule -If no specific federal statute or rule directly addresses an issue, then a federal court must apply the state law to to substantive issues -Determining whether state law is substantive requires consideration of whether the law would determine the outcome of the dispute, and whether applying different law in federal and state court would be inequitable and lead to forum shopping -Here, the use of state law instead of federal law would determine the outcome of the case because… -When multiple states are involved, a federal court decides which state’s law to apply by applying the choice of law rules of the state in which the federal court is located -When determining state law, federal courts follow the decisions of the state’s high court, or decide what that court would do -The Erie doctrine discourages forum shopping and prevents inequitable administration of laws -The Erie doctrine preserves vertical uniformity -The outcome of a case should not be affected by whether the case is brought to federal or state court Summary Judgment -The issue is whether the judge should provide summary judgment and motion to dismiss the case -Summary judgement permits a court to enter judgment on a claim without a trial -Under FRCP 56, the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law -To win summary judgment, the moving party must show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law -Here, there is/is no dispute about any material fact 12 -A fact is material if it is essentially related to the outcome of the case -Here, the disputed facts [disputed facts] are/are not related to the applicable substantive law -Therefore, there is/is not a genuine dispute of any material fact -Under Rule 12, there multiple reasons for which a defendant can file for a motion for summary judgment -Rule 41(b) involuntary dismissal: not on the merits unless with prejudice -pretrial summary judgment efficient for court Judgment as a Matter of Law -Rule 50 -Under Rule 50(a), a party may move for judgment as a matter of law at any time before the case is submitted to the jury -court takes decision-making authority away from the jury -Rule 50(a): jmol,directed verdict -Rule 50(b): renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) -court must look at evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party, Relief from a Judgment or Order -Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for a multitude of reasons Default Judgment Alternative Dispute Resolution Affirmative Defenses -Rule 8(c) -Rule 8(d) -Not Twiqbal standard Policy Issues -Here, because the court’s decision is a matter of discretion rather than federal rule, it is necessary to consider policy issues that affect how the court should decide -Efficiency -Judicial resources -Finalty -Vertical uniformity -Due process -Full Faith and Due Credit Clause -One bite of the apple 13 14
