lOMoARcPSD|11000142 Jurisdiction Flowchart (Two branches of jurisdiction: subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction) I. Personal Jurisdiction II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Ability of court having subject matter jurisdiction to exercise power over a particular defendant or property) (Ability of court to exercise power over a particular type of case) I(a). In Personam Federal “Subject-Matter” Jurisdiction State “Subject-Matter” Jurisdiction (exclusive jurisdiction over certain issues; e.g., criminal, civil, family, probate) US Constitution: Article III; Section 2 In Rem Quasi In Rem II(a). Federal Question II(b). Diversity 28 U.S.C. § 1331 28 U.S.C. § 1332 III. Removal Jurisdiction II(c). Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1367 II(b)(i). Erie Doctrine And the law applied in Diversity Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (Right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits) IV. Venue 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (Right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sit) V. Waiver VI. Getting Rid of a Complaint: Rule 12(b); Summary Judgment; JMOL & JNOV VII. Counterclaims, Cross-claims, and 3rd Party Claims VIII. Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel See Issacharoff p. 148 IX. Joinder of Parties & Joinder of Claims lOMoARcPSD|11000142 I. Personal Jurisdiction (Ability of a court having subject matter jurisdiction to exercise power over a particular defendant or item of property) I(a). In Personam Jurisdiction TRADITIONAL BASES OF IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION: 1. DOMICILE §Determined by 1) true fixed home 2) with intention of returning when away. Mas. v. Perry (5th) p. 851 §If person lacks capacity, determined by law (e.g., minor is domiciliary of parent’s home state). 2. CONSENT 3. IN-STATE SERVICE 4. “LONG-ARM STATUTES” §EXPRESSED – Carnival Cruise Lines (US) p.825 §In Personam jurisdiction for persons served with process within state, even if merely transient. Burnham v. Superior Court (US) p. 799 Power over any person or property over which state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction. California LAS § Exceptions - In-state service induced by fraud. - Persons involved in judicial proceeding. Specify in detail the situation in which a court can exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendant. Hess v. Pawloski p. 696 §IMPLIED – Hess v. Pawloski (US) p. 696 §VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE/WAIVER – Insurance Corp of Ireland (US) p. 819 § UNLIMITED – § LIMITED (SPECIFIC) – MODERN BASIS OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION: Jurisdictional power expanded to those who have consented to forum’s power. For a defendant to “consent” to a forum’s power: “Defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ~ INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO., V. WASHINGTON (US) P. 700 1. SUFFICIENT MINIMUM CONTACTS* *ALWAYS REQUIRED § In determining if minimum contacts exist, a court will look to two factors: 1. Purposeful Availment – D must reach out to the forum in some way; not accidentally. 2. Foreseeability – D must know or anticipate that her activities in the forum render it foreseeable that she may be “haled into court” there; not that item may end up in forum ~ World Wide Volkswagen (US) p.720. − Mere foreseeability alone is not sufficient for minimum contacts; need a “plus-factor” ~ Pavlovich, (CA) p.766. − Courts divided whether injecting into “Stream of Commerce” w/o purposefully directing it at forum is minimum contacts. ~ Asahi, (US) p.756 − Tension between “Purposeful Availment” and SOC § “Minimum Contacts Test” ~ Calder v. Jones (US) p.736. 1. Intentional actions 2. Aimed at the forum state 3. Resulting in harm, the brunt of which is suffered – and which D knows is likely to be suffered – in the forum state. 2. TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE* *MIN. CONTACTS USE TO TRUMP FAIR PLAY; IN ASAHI FAIR PLAY TRUMPED MIN CONTACTS. § In determining if exercise of jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, several factors are considered: 1. P’s interest in proceeding in the forum. 2. Burden on D having to defend in the forum. 3. Forum state’s interest in providing redress for its residents. 4. Judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of the dispute in the chosen forum ~ Asahi, (US) p.756 § Notice – “Reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections” ~ Mullane v. Hannover (US) sup. 39. § Also consider “Relatedness of Claim to Contact” with the forum (part of both MC and FP analysis): § Systematic & Continuous = General Jurisdiction; in personam jurisdiction proper for any cause of action whether for in-state or out-of-state activities. § Casual, Occasional, or Indirect = Specific Jurisdiction; in personam jurisdiction proper only for g from that in-state activity lOMoARcPSD|11000142 II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Ability of court to exercise power over a particular type of case) II(a). Federal “Subject-Matter” Jurisdiction US Constitution: Article III; Section 2 II(a). Federal Question 28 U.S.C. § 1331 FEDERAL QUESTION BASICS § “District courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ~ US Constitution, Article III, Section 2 1) FEDERAL QUESTION MUST APPEAR ON FACE OF THE COMPLAINT ~ MOTTLEY, (US) P.865 § § Defendant’s answer or defense is irrelevant; the existence of a defense based on federal law will not give federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff ’s anticipation of a defense is irrelevant and will not raise a federal question. 2) NO AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT 3) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION § Congress has expressly provided that the jurisdiction of the federal courts shall be exclusive in: a) Bankruptcy Proceedings; b) Patent and Copyright Cases; c) Antitrust Cases; d) Admiralty Cases; e) postal matters; f) Internal Revenues; g) Securities (etc.) 4) CONCURRENT JURISDICTION § Federal courts may also have concurrent jurisdiction with state courts over certain claims (e.g., civil rights or Federal Employment Liability Act (FELA) claims; subject to removal. Federal Question Flowchart Does P’s well-pleaded complaint allege an express of implied federal cause of action? YES NO Does P’s well-pleaded complaint allege a state law cause of action of which federal law is an substantial element? (“Federal Ingredient Test”) Grabel, (US) p.873 Federal Question Jurisdiction is Proper YES NO No Federal Question Jurisdiction lOMoARcPSD|11000142 II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Ability of court to exercise power over a particular type of case) Federal “Subject-Matter” Jurisdiction US Constitution: Article III; Section 2 II(b). Diversity Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1332 DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BASICS 1) COMPLETE DIVERSITY WHEN ACTION IS COMMENCED § § Diversity must be complete –this requires that no plaintiff be a co-citizen with any defendant – when the action is commenced. Exception: Federal interpleader statute [28 U.S.C. § 1335] requires only minimal diversity – diversity needed only between two claimants; amount in controversy at least $500. 2) CITIZENSHIP/DOMICILE A) PERSONS – The location where you were born and continues through your life unless: § You physically change your state; and § You have the intention to remain in the new state for the indefinite future. B) CORPORATIONS – Every corporation has two domiciles § State of incorporation (or every state in which it is incorporated); and § Its principle place of business. Two tests for principle place of business: 1. “Nerve Center” Test – Location of corporation’s headquarters. 2. “Muscle” Test – Location where most of manufacturing or servicing occurs. C) UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS § Citizenship is that of each and every member; national labor union with members in all 50 states will never pass the “diversity of citizenship” test. D) ALIENS § Deemed to be a citizen of state in which the alien is domiciled; it is generally accepted, however, that at least one party to the suit must be a natural-born or naturalized United States citizen. 3) AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY § § § Must be in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, but inclusive of punitive damages (evaluated ex ante) Allegation that damages in controversy exceed $75,000 must be made in good faith. Aggregation of Claims – single party can aggregate all claims against single D, even if unrelated, to reach jurisdictional amount requirement; single party cannot aggregate claims against multiple Ds to reach jurisdictional amount requirement unless asserting a joint claim. 4) ERIE DOCTRINE § § When a federal court is in diversity, the court will apply the state’s substantive law and federal procedural law. If the state’s law is procedural and if there is no federal law “on point,” an “unguided Erie choice” is presented and the federal court will engage in various analyses to determine whether state or federal procedural law should apply. See II(b)(i) – “Erie Doctrine Flowchart” lOMoARcPSD|11000142 II(b)(i). Erie Doctrine Flowchart (An Erie Problem arises when a court is sitting in diversity and a party alleges that a State’s law should apply) Some State Laws are clearly substantive: 1) Statute of Limitations (York); 2) “Conflict of law” rules (Klaxon (US)); 3) Elements of a claim or defense Harlan, J – To determine if a rule is “substantive or “procedural,” ask would the choice of rule “substantially affect those primary decisions respecting human conduct which our constitutional system leaves to state regulation?” ~ Hanna, (US) e Is there a conflict between State’s rule and: Federal Rule Is the Federal Rule valid under R.E.A. (28 U.S.C. § 2072 )? To check: Does the Rule regulate Procedure? YES Constitution Federal Statute YES YES YES Does the Rule “abridge,” “enlarge,” or “modify” a substantive right? NO Apply Constitutional Provision YES Is Federal Statute Constitutional? NO YES NO Apply State Law “Unguided Erie Choice" YES Test: “Does the rule really regulate procedure?” Valid. Apply Federal Rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (R.E.A.). Is State’s law substantive? Not Valid. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apply State Rule under R.D.A. (28 U.S.C. § 1652). Consider whether Outcome Determinative: York, (US) Harlan, J. Could a reasonable man characterize the rule as procedural? ~ Hanna, (US) - Dissent NO YES To determine, consider the “Twin Aims” of Erie ~ Hanna, (US) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apply Federal Statute under R.D.A. (28 U.S.C. § 1652). Byrd Balancing Test: Even if state and federal laws encourage forum shopping and inequitable administration of law for in-state v. out-of-state residents, consider Federal Interest: May outweigh implementation of state rule for federal rule Do the two rules encourage 1) Forum Shopping (ex ante) and 2) Inequitable Administration of Law (for in-state v. out-of-state litigants) YES, but also consider… NO Apply Federal Rule lOMoARcPSD|11000142 II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Ability of court to exercise power over a particular type of case) Federal “Subject-Matter” Jurisdiction US Constitution: Article III; Section 2 Same Case and Controversy II(c). Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1367 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION BASICS 1) 28 U.S.C. § 1367(A) – PENDANT JURISDICTION OVER STATE CLAIMS § § § Applies when a party sues under federal question and subsequently adds a closely related state claim. Federal courts that have (1) original jurisdiction over a case because of a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) can exercise supplemental (pendant) jurisdiction over a closely related state law claim if (2) the two claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and are such that a plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” ~ United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, (US) p.888 The state law claim in this case is considered to be part of the “same case or controversy” for Article III, Section 2 purposes. 2) 28 U.S.C. § 1367(B) – ANCILLARY JURISDICTION § § § § Applies when parties in a diversity action want to include a claim against a non-diverse party which would defeat diversity jurisdiction, but without whom complete adjudication would be impossible Federal courts that have (1) original jurisdiction over a case because of diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332) can exercise supplemental (ancillary) jurisdiction over a non-diverse party if (2) the claim against non-diverse party arises from a “common nucleus of operative fact.” For cases based solely on diversity, ancillary jurisdiction may not be used to support claims by plaintiffs against non-diverse persons made parties under: (1) Rule 14 – Impleader; (2) Rule 19 – Compulsory joinder; (3) Rule 20 – Permissive joinder; and (4) Rule 24 – Intervention. Remember: 1367(b) restrictions apply if diversity is the SOLE basis for being in federal court. Supplemental Jurisdiction Flowchart 28 U.S.C. § 1367 NO 3d party added under what Rule 14, 19, 20, 24? Same “Case or Controversy”/ “Common nucleus of operative fact” P Claim against 3d party by P or D? Basic requirement of § 1367(a YES Ancillary Claim Or Pendant Claim Ancillary Claim Pendant Claim This is the § 1367(b) limitation D NO Supplemental Jurisdiction Limitations of § 1367(b) do not apply to claims brought by D. Supplemental Jurisdiction Limitations of § 1367(b) do not apply to pendant jurisdiction. lOMoARcPSD|11000142 III. Removal Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (Right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits) REMOVAL JURISDICTION BASICS 1) STATE TO FEDERAL ONLY 2) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION NECESSARY § § Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant can only remove an action that could have originally been brought by a plaintiff in the federal courts. Defendant cannot remove on the ground that she has a defense grounded in federal law, since a federal defense is insufficient to confer original federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. 3) ONLY DEFENDANT MAY REMOVE; ALL MUST SEEK REMOVAL § § 4) VENUE § § Only defendants can exercise the right of removal. If there is more than one defendant, all defendants must join in the removal. If some defendants refuse to join in the removal, removal is denied. Venue for an action removed under § 1441 lies in the federal court “embracing the place where such [state] action is pending.” In a properly removed case, venue is proper in the federal court of the state where the case was pending, even if it would have been improper had the plaintiff originally filed the action there. Ø EXCEPTIONS § § When one of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the original state action was brought, and when federal jurisdiction would be based on diversity, the action is not removable § 1441 (b) A case may not be removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction more than one year after it was commenced in state court. Does the Court have SubjectMatter Jurisdiction? Removal Jurisdiction Flowchart Does the Court have FQJ? Federal Question Claims Pass Through the Federal Question Filter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Does the Court have Diversity Jurisdiction? Limitation § 1441(b) Federal Question Flowchart Does P’s well-pleaded complaint allege an express of implied federal cause of action? Does P’s well-pleaded complaint allege a state law cause of action of which federal lawis an substantial element? (“Federal Ingredient Test”) Grable Federal Question Jurisdiction is Proper § 1441(a) Court must hear case No Federal Question Jurisdiction Removal is improper if based on FQJ Does the Court have Personal Jurisdiction? Non-Federal Question Claims Pass Through Supplemental Jurisdiction Filter. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 Same “Case or Controversy”/ “Common nucleus of operative fact?” Meets Supplemental Jurisdiction Requirements under § 1367? (see above, p.6) Yes Courts may exercise or decline authority per § 1367(c) No Court may exercise jurisdiction or remand all matters not within original jurisdiction. § 1441(c) lOMoARcPSD|11000142 IV. Venue 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (Venue deals with locality of a lawsuit. It involves a decision of which district or county is appropriate, based typically on where a matter occurred or where the defendant resides) VENUE BASICS 1) GENERAL RULES § An action may be brought in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, IF all defendants reside in the same State; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is subject to the action is situated; or if there is no district which satisfies (1) or (2), § for (3) actions based solely on diversity, a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, it there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought . ~ 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) § for (3) actions not based solely on diversity, a judicial district where any defendant may be found. ~ 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 2) IMPROPER VENUE MAY BE WAIVED § § Unlike Subject-Matter jurisdiction, venue may be waived by parties. Venue is considered to be waived unless timely objection is made to the improper venue. 3) TRANSFER § § § § § § Section 1404(a) allows transfer to another district where the action “might have been brought” even though venue is proper. Policy behind Section 1404(a) is what while venue may be correct, the parties or witnesses might be greatly inconvenienced by the trial in the original forum. Receiving court must have (i) subject matter jurisdiction, (ii) in personam jurisdiction, (iii) proper venue. Section 1406(a) allows transfer when venue is improper; same standards as above – (i) subject matter jurisdiction, (ii) in personam jurisdiction, (iii) proper venue. State courts NEVER transfer to federal courts; federal courts NEVER transfer to state courts. Choice of Laws: As per Erie, when a transfer occurs though original venue was proper, laws of the transferring state apply; if original venue was improper, laws of receiving state apply. V. Waiver Never Waived Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Federal Question and Diversity) can never be waived. May be Waived 1. 2. 3. 4. Personal Jurisdiction Notice Service of Process Venue Detailed in Federal Rules Waiver of Rule 12(b) defenses specified in: Rules 12(g)-(h) lOMoARcPSD|11000142 VI. Getting Rid of a Complaint: Rule 12(b); Summary Judgment; JMOL & JNOV RULE 12(B) BASICS 1) RULE 12(B) – MOTION TO DISMISS § Prior to filing an answer, the defendant may file a motion and raise any of the following Rule12(b) defenses:: i. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction Can be raised at any time ii. Lack of personal jurisdiction Raised in answer or waived iii. Improper venue Raised in answer or waived iv. Insufficient process Raised in answer or waived v. Insufficient service of process Raised in answer or waived vi. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted Raised prior to or at trial vii. Failure to join a party needed for a just adjudication Raised prior to or at trial SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASICS 1) GENERALLY § § § Made within 30 days after the close of discovery ~ Rule 56(b) Summary judgment should be granted 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. ~ Rule 56(a) Upon a movant’s motion for summary judgment, non-movant must establish her right to go to trial by citing to materials in the record establishing a genuine dispute of material fact; burden shifting. ~ Celotex, (US) p.440 • Subsequent to Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, (US) p.449, a nonmovant can survive summary judgment if and only if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury would return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” ― That is, granting of summary judgment is based on the substantive standard of proof. • Scott v. Harris JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (JMOL) & JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (JNOV) BASICS 1) GENERALLY § § § § Motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) can be made by any party anytime before submission of the case to the jury. The motion may be granted only after the nonmoving party “has been fully heard” on the matter. To grant the motion, the court must find that “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the party on that issue.” ~ F.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (i.e., moving part has satisfied its burden of proof) Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict – Can be made within 28 days after entry of judgment so long as judgment as a matter of law was moved for at some time during the trial AND if judgment was based on a verdict which reasonable person could not have reached. ~ F.R.Civ.P. 50(b) lOMoARcPSD|11000142 VII. Counterclaims, Cross-Claims, 3rd Party Claims COUNTERCLAIM BASICS: RULE 13(A) AND RULE 13(B) 1) GENERAL – TWO TYPES OF COUNTERCLAIMS: § § § Compulsory: Rules 13(a) – A counterclaim is compulsory and must be asserted if its arises out of the� same transaction or occurrence as one of the plaintiff ’s claims (for example, Helzberg's; a compulsory counterclaim must be raised or it will be barred. Permissive: Rule 13(b) – Any other counterclaim is permissive and may be asserted even though there is� no connection between it and the plaintiff ’s claim. Exam Tips: ― If a compulsory counterclaim requires adding a party over whom the court cannot obtain jurisdiction, the case may be dismissed. ― If in diversity and compulsory counterclaim claim does not meet amount in controversy requirement (<$75,000), party can invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction: be sure to use buzzwords: “same case or controversy” & “common nucleus of fact.” CROSS-CLAIM BASICS: RULE 13(G) 1) GENERAL – RULE 13(G): § § A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a co-party if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim. Can invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction if cross-complaint won’t stand alone. 3 PARTY CLAIMS: RULE 14 (IMPLEADER) BASICS RD 1) GENERAL – RULE 14(A): § § § § § A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or� may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it (Indemnity because of 3rd party or 3rd party� contributorily at fault) 3d. Party Defendant must assert all defenses available under 12(b) and compulsory counter-claims or� waive them like 3d. Party Plaintiff/original defendant. Adding New Parties: Theoretically, an infinite number of parties may be added to the action, from� retailer to manufacturer, to each-and-every supplier involved along the way. When a federal court is in diversity, original plaintiff cannot assert a claim against parties� brought by the defendant into the suit under Rule 14 (third-party practice), Rules 19 & 20 (compulsory� and permissive joinder), or Rule 24 (intervention) if the claim would destroy diversity. Exam Tips: § Remember that every party added means you must establish personal jurisdiction over all these parties. § Draw a picture; it’ll help resolve these problems. lOMoARcPSD|11000142 IX. Joinder of Parties & Joinder of Claims Court must meet Personal Jurisdiction Requirements for joinder to be proper BIG PICTURE* *For Joinder to be proper, it must satisfy both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements, Subject Matter Jurisdiction requirements over the claim to be made AND personal jurisdiction requirements over the person to be joined. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Claims Rule 13(a) – Compulsory Counterclaim: A party must state as a counterclaim any claim that: (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 13(b) – Permissive Counterclaim: A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory. Rule 13(g) – Crossclaim against co-party: A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a co-party if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim. The crossclaim may include a claim that the co-party is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant. Rule 18(a) – A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party. Parties Rule 20(a) – Permissive Joinder: All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they (1) assert any right to relief … arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (2) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if (1) there is asserted against them any right to relief … arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (2) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Rule 14(a) – Impleader by Defendant A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. Rule 14(b) – Impleader by Plaintiff When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may bring in a third party if this rule would allow a defendant to. Rule 19(a) – Required Joinder: A person that will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (1) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (2) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because AND § 1331 Subject-Matter Fed. courts shall have orig. Jx over all civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ~ Article iii, Section 2 Well Pleaded Complaint Rule Necessary both that the case “arise under” federal law and that this fact appear on the face of the complaint. -------------------------------------------------- Issue that the D raises in answer or that P anticipates are irrelevant for federal-question jurisdictional purposes. Subject Matter Jurisdiction § 1332 Diversity § 1367 Supplemental $75,000.01 minimum & COMPLETE Diversity of parties When fed. court has original Jx, court shall have supp. Jx over all other claims that are part of the same “case or controversy” or “arise from a common nucleus of fact.” Amount evaluated ex ante; must be made in Good Faith; actual award is irrelevant Diversity must exist at time the complaint is filed; not at trial or when cause of action arose. Plaintiff can often cure “lack of diversity problem” by dismissing nondiverse parties. Federal Question Jurisdiction Can arise from an implied or express right of action; from Congress granting Fed. courts exclusive Jx over certain issues (e.g., patent); or when federal law is a substantial element of the complaint Rule 19(b) – Except: When org. Jx is based solely on diversity; court WILL NOT have supp. Jx over claims made by Ps against persons joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, & 24. See § 1367(b) Fed. court may decline sup. Jx if the new claim: 1) Raises a novel or complex issue of state law; 2) Predominates over orig. claim; 3) Is the only claim that hasn’t been dismissed; 4) Exceptional circumstances compel declining Jx. When joinder would deprive count of SMJ, the court must determine whether the action should proceed or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include: (1) the extent to which a judgment 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 by: protective provisions in the judgment; shaping the relief; or other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for non-joinder.
