Civil Procedure I: Schwarzschild
CIVIL PROCEDURE
GENERALLY
PROCEDURE OF A CIVIL
ACTION
Motions
PERSONAL
JURISDICTION
Requirements of
due process
·
Pennoyer v. Neff
– Defendant must be present in state for court to exercise in personam
jurisdiction
·
Pennoyer
exceptions
o
Domicile, residency and nationality sufficient for in personam even if served
outside jdxn
o
Appearance to defend on merits confers in personam
o
Prior
consent to confer in personam over a chosen court is sufficient to vest that
court w/ jdxn
o
Nonresident motorist statutes (Hess v.
Pawloski) [implied consent]
o
Long-arm
statutes
o
Fair,
just and reasonable under International
Shoe
§
Minimum
contacts
§
fairness
·
Nationality – U.S. citizenship is sufficient for federal court jdxn
·
Domicile
(Milliken v. Meyer- WY man served in
CO is OK)
·
Consent
(Adam v. Saenger)
IN-STATE DEFENDANT
OUT-OF-STATE
DEFENDANT
Three factors are
generally considered in determining if it is “fair” to cause a D to stand trial
in a particular state:
1)
Whether
she has purposefully availed herself of the benefits of the forum
2)
Whether
the action is related to her contacts with the forum
3)
Whether
it was (or should have been) reasonably foreseeable to D that she might be haled
into court in that state
State Long Arm
Statutes – Does the state
statute provide for PJ?
1)
Pennoyer-like
2)
Implied
consent
3)
Long-arm
Constitutional
Analysis (14th
Amendment, section 1)
Nonresident
corporations - Minimum contacts test where long-arm statute is used to establish
PJ
·
International Shoe
– Due process requires only that D have some “minimum contact” w/ forum state,
and that the exercise of jurisdiction not violate “traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice”
o
Minimum
contacts w/ forum state
§
purposeful availment requirement (Hanson
v. Denckla )
o
Fairness
Specific
Jurisdiction and State Long Arm Statutes
·
“Single
contact” jurisdictional rule
o
McGee v. International Life Insurance
Co. – PJ found where only
contact b/n company and forum state was mailing of premiums by CA resident to
office of company in TX
·
Injury
as only contact
o
Gray v.
American Radiator
& Standard Sanitary Corp. (safety
valves for hot water heaters) –
§
Relevant
inquiry is whether D engaged in some act or conduct by which he invoked benefits
and protections of the forum
§
commercial trxns of D’s products result in substantial and continuous use, so
contact invoked protection of forum state’s laws
·
Foreseeability alone is not minimum contact
o
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson
(NY car exploded in OK) – Relevant foreseeability is that of D whose conduct and
connection w/ forum would justify an anticipation of jdxn
·
Can have
contact w/o entering forum
o
Calder v. Jones
(article written in FL defamed CA citizen) – if have cause and effect, can have
contact w/ forum w/o entering
General
jurisdiction and State Long Arm Statutes
·
Cause of
action arising outside of forum - Continuous and systematic contacts required
o
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v.
Hall (helicopter crash in
Peru) – Training and purchases in TX do not constitute continuous & systematic
activity to warrant exercise of in personam jdxn
§
Court
may exercise specific in personam jurisdiction when controversy is related to or
arises out of D’s contact w/ the forum (International
Shoe)
§
When COA
does not arise out of or relate to foreign corp’s activities in forum state,
court may exercise in personam jurisdiction if D corp’s in-state activities are
conducted on a continuous and systematic basis, not occasionally or irregularly
(Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining)
Technological
Contacts
·
Purposeful availment through electronic means
o
Bellino v. Simon
(online baseball sale and purchase) –
§
One
unsolicited defamatory phone call from the forum state to a nonresident D does
not establish contacts sufficient to support PJ
§
D1’s use
of the visitor form on his website solicited the contact b/n himself and Aubert
§
In
making allegedly defamatory remarks through use of phone and Internet, D1
purposefully established minimum contacts w/ LA such that he could reasonably
anticipate being haled into court
·
Nonresident’s operation of website
o
Cybersell v. Cybersell
– most courts require smthg more than just maintenance of website
·
Zippo Mfg v. Zippo Dot Com
– sliding scale test – likelihood of PJ is directly proportionate to nature and
quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet (active
v. passive websites)
Jurisdiction Based
Upon Power Over Property
·
Jurisdiction in rem –
state/court may render a valid judgment affecting interests of all persons in a
thing where it has jurisdiction over the thing, even though it may not have
jurisdiction over persons whose interests in the thing are affected
·
Jurisdiction quasi in rem –
state/court may render a valid judgment affecting interests of a particular
person in a thing when it has jurisdiction over the thing even though it may not
have PJ over person whose interests are affected
·
Harris v. Balk
– Debt follows the debtor
·
Modern
interpretation of minimum contacts
o
Shaffer v. Heitner
(Greyhound property in DE) – International Shoe minimum contacts test applies to
quasi in rem cases
§
Statutory presence of Ds’ stock in forum state is unrelated to COA and
insufficient to establish minimum contacts
§
In rem
actions - largely unaffected by minimum contacts rule b/c tangible property is
in forum state
·
Judgments can be enforced in other states – Full faith and credit (art 4 sec1)
Physical Presence
·
Transient Jurisdiction
o
Burnham v. Superior Court
(child visitation agrmt) – PJ over nonresident who was personally served w/
process while temporarily in forum state for a claim unrelated to his in-state
activities is constitutional
Consent
·
Parties
can agree to jurisdiction in K
·
M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore
PJ for Diversity
Jdxn cases – U.S. fed courts borrow long-arm statutes of forum state in which it
is located
CHECKLIST OF PJ
FACTORS
REQUIREMENT OF
REASONABLE NOTICE (Rule 4)
Reasonable method
of notification given the individual circumstances
·
Constitutional Standards
o
Mullane v. Central Hanover
(common trust fund settlement) – fundamental requirement of due process in any
proceeding that is to be accorded finality is
notice reasonably calculated, under all
circumstances, to reach the interested parties and afford them an opportunity to
be heard
§
Method
of publication was insufiicient unless beneficiaries and addresses unknown and
not reasonably discoverable by due diligence
·
Technique of service
o
National Equipment Rental v. Szukhent
(K boilerplate clause appt of in-state agent for SOP)
§
K term
to appt agent to receive SOP is valid, even if party does not personally know
agent and K does not req. agent to actually transmit notice
§
Cf
Wuchter v. Pizzutti – appt by law
·
nonresident motorist statute invalid b/c adhoc notice by SoS
·
Immunity
from Service of Process
o
Rationale – public policy, judicial convenience, general fairness
o
Extends
to witnesses at other litigation, counsel for parties at other litigation,
parties to another litigation, certain persons acting in some official capacity
w/n forum state, e.g. marshals, officers of the court, government officials,
investigators for the government
o
State ex rel. Sivnksty v. Duffield
(vacationer hit/injured two kids, arrested and jailed for reckless driving) –
Service with process in civil action to nonresident incarcerated due to his own
voluntary actions is proper
·
Invalid
service by fraud, force, involuntary entry into forum
·
Court
may quash service of process at its discretion
o
Wyman v. Newhouse
(induced by “dying” mother) – No enforcement of judgment procured in another
state by fraudulent service of process
Service of
process, even in conformity with the applicable state laws, must comport with
due process (i.e., give such notice as is reasonably calculated given the
circumstances to apprise the defendant of the action)
PLEADINGS
(how to start a lawsuit) Sanctions found under Rule 11
To Start a Lawsuit:
1)
File a complaint with court clerk
2)
Present Summons to the clerk
3)
In proper form, date stamped, now valid and can be
served
Purposes of traditional Code Pleadings
1)
Provide notice of nature of claim or defense
2)
Identify baseless claims
3)
Delineate each party’s view of the facts
4)
Narrow the issues
Modern pleadings only retain first two purposes
Detail required under the codes:
1)
pleading of all major elements constituting COA of P
2)
pleading of ultimate facts that lead pleader to conclude
these elements are present
3)
pleading of statutorily prescribed elements such as
docket number, identity of parties and their attorneys, name of action, etc.
4)
pleading of relief sought by P
·
Gillispie
v. Goodyear Service Stores – P did not plead sufficient facts to support COA
o
If she had pleaded w/ more facts, her complaint
might have been vulnerable as replete w/ evidentiary facts rather than ultimate
facts
·
Weakness w/ Code pleading reqmts – lack of
flexible application by overly formalistic courts
Detail required under Federal Rules
Complaint/Pleading
Rule 8(a)
For a complaint to be sufficient under the FRCP, it must
contain: 1) a proper competency allegation, 2) a short, plain statement of the
claim, and 3) a description of the relief demanded by the plaintiff.
1) Includes:
a.
Statement revealing the grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends, unless it already has jurisdiction
b.
Statement of the claim showing pleader is entitled to
relief
c.
Identify the desired relief
2) Purpose
3)
Traditional Pleading Law
4)
Modern Pleading Law Rule 8(a)
5)
Time Permitted for a Response Rule 12(a)
Summons
1) Includes Rule 10(a)
2) Purpose Rule 4
3) How to Serve a Summons Rule 4(c)
RESPONDING TO A
COMPLAINT
Failure to respond to a pleading results in default
judgment against D
·
Rule 54(c)= The amount awarded in a judgment by
default cannot exceed the relief prayed for in the party’s pleading
o
BUT claimant may be awarded damages in excess of
those demanded in his pleadings if the jury thought he was entitled to more.
o
A D who defaults is protected by a cap—the amount
of relief requested in the pleading but a D who participates may be liable for
more damages
o
D will not be deprived of more than he has been
given notice of (Due Process). If
he goes to court, he will have notice.
·
Rule 8(b) Defenses by Responsive Pleading=
short and plain statement of party’s defense to each claim asserted.
Admitting or denying the statements upon which the other party relies.
o
Not having enough information about a statement
is equal to denial
o
D can either deny specific statements in the
claim or the claim generally
o
Encompass denials and affirmative defenses
(fraud, illegality, etc)
o
Rule 8(d) Failure to deny is deemed admitted.
o
Rule 12(e) Motion to Make a More Definite
Statement
o
Only used if the complaint was too vague and
ambiguous that it would be unreasonable to require the moving party to reply to
it.
o
Rarely granted—vagueness and uncertainty must be
addressed through discovery
o
Motion can only be made of pleading being
attacked requires a response…if not response is permitted, motion is never
proper
·
Rule 8(e) (2): party may plead alternative claims
subject to obligations in Rule11
MOTIONS ATTACKING
PLEADINGS
1)
Motion to Dismiss Rule 12(b)
Attacks the substance of the complaint, not an objection to
the drafting/form of the complaint
·
Defenses Made by Motion= motions are made before
pleading
(i)
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
(ii)
Lack of jurisdiction over the person
·
State courts – special appearance is limited to
challenging PJ
1.
If challenge suit on merits w/ challenge to PJ, then P
consents to court’s jdxn
·
Fed courts
(iii)
Improper venue
(iv)
Insufficiency of process
(v)
Insufficiency of service of process
(vi)
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted
o
If D makes this motion and it is granted, P is
given 1 opportunity to amend the complaint
o
But if leave to amend is denied, it constitutes
an adjudication on the merits and further action on the same claim are
barred—res judicata.
o
Assuming the pleaded facts are true, do they
constitute a legal claim which P is entitled to judicial relief
(vii)
Failure to join a party
·
American
Nurses’ Assn v. IL (class action suit claiming sex discrimination in
employment) – Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that P can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief (Conley v. Gibson)
2)
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Rule 12(c)
·
Treated as a motion for summary judgment Rule 56.
·
All parties given reasonable opportunity to
present relevant material
3)
Motion to Strike Rule 12(f)
·
Court may order any insufficient defense or
redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter stricken from any
pleading
·
The material must obviously be false and
unrelated to the subject matter of the action
·
Motion can be used to attack separate portions of
the complaint which are insufficient
·
Drastic remedy, viewed with disfavor and
infrequently granted
·
Also applies if the pleading was filed to late
and court approval had not been obtained.
All Motions under Rule 12 must be made in writing and must
specify the grounds upon which it’s based Rule (b)(1). Facts need to established
with affidavits, depositions, or other evidence.
The 12(b(6) motion is limited to the fact of the complaint.
Motion must be served within 20 days after service of a summons and
complaint.
Motions under Rule 12 are not compulsory BUT if D does file
a motion under Rule12, D must include ALL defenses and objections that she could
then raise by motion. Omitting an
available defense or objection makes it unavailable—can’t raise it through Rule
12 motion again. All Rule 12
motions must be consolidated and submitted together.
DEFENSES WAIVED
UNLESS RAISED IN FIRST RESPONSIVE PLEADING Rule 12(h)(1)
Objections to:
ANSWERING THE
COMPLAINT
A D who faced a complaint could
1) Answer
2) Respond to each of the allegations
3) Demur
·
If demur overruled, D allowed to proceed to the
merits
·
If sustained, P can choose to amend her complaint
Denials Rule 8(b)
(i)
Admit (Rule 8(d))= all allegations to which D doesn’t
specifically deny is deemed admitted
(ii)
Deny= to avoid unintended admission, D has to add a
paragraph in their answers denying each and every allegation of the complaint
unless otherwise admitted
They can also deny generally the whole thing but FRCP
discourages the use of the general denial—only to be made in good faith
situations and where everything in the complaint can be denied legitimately.
General denial is risky—if denial doesn’t meet the
substance of the averments then the court can decided D admitted
(iii)
Plead
insufficient information
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES (defendant introduces new information that he must prove in order
to avoid P’s claim, assuming P’s allegations are true)
Rule 8(c)= when a party has mistakenly designated a defense
as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as defense, the court shall treat the
pleading as there had been proper designation.
Requiring the pleading of affirmative defenses, they
prevent unfair surprise, D can’t ambush P with an unexpected defense and promote
efficiency
These are considered disfavored and must be particularly
pleaded by D and in looking at the relationship between the defense and the
cause of action look at:
1) whether the matter is a necessary or extrinsic element
in P’s cause of action
2) which party has better access to relevant evidence
3) policy considerations
19 Affirmative Defenses has to be raised
specifically
Two Kinds of Affirmative Defenses
Ingraham v. United
States (Fed Tort Claims Act suit, cap on dgs as aff. defense) – failure to
raise an affirmative defense timely constitutes a waiver of that defense
AMENDING PLEADINGS
(regardless of what you plead in the complaint or the answer, if
different information comes out in discovery or at trial, the pleadings will be
deemed to conform to what is presented at trial.)
Under FRCP 15(c), a claim contained in an amendment relates
back to the original pleading, whenever that claim arose out of the occurrence
set forth in the original document.
FRCP 15(a) states that leave to amend shall be given “when
justice so requires”
Important Policies:
1)
Provides maximum opportunity for each claim to be
decided on its merits rather than on procedural technicalities.
Old rules didn’t allow amendments to change the original cause of
action—this is a permissive approach to amendment requests
2)
Pleadings have limited role—only gives notice of the
nature of pleader’s claim or defense and the transaction.
Pleadings no longer have the burden of revealing facts and issues—that is
now done in discovery.
Rule 15
1)
party can amend pleading once, any time before
responsive pleading is served or within 20 days after it is served. These are
automatically allowed if no response is required.
Either party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right
o
Otherwise, can only amend by leave of the court
or written consent of the other party—consent is liberally given prior to trial
2)
Issues not raised in pleadings but are tried and treated
as if they had been raised in the pleadings and the pleadings conform to the
evidence. But failure to amend does
not affect the result of the trial of the issues.
3)
An amended pleading relates back to the date of the
original pleading when:
o
Permitted by law
o
Claim or defense asserted in the amendment arose
out of that same conduct in the original pleading
o
Rule 15(c)(3)BUT if changing the party or naming
the D ONLY RELATES BACK IF:
i.
The claim arises from the same transaction as the
original &
ii.
Received notice of the action so D is not prejudiced in
maintaining his defense on the merits
iii.
Knew or should have know that this action would have
been brought against them had there not been a
mistake (if the parties were
designated as “unknown” it would NOT
relate back to the original date)
iv.
New party was aware of the action within 120 days of the
filing of the original complaint.
v.
This is ONLY about new D, relation back doesn’t seem to
apply to new P
4)
With reasonable notice, a party may serve supplemental
pleadings about events that have happened since the original pleading
Failure to name correct defendant
Beeck v. Aquaslide
‘N” Dive Corp. (personal injury) – D allowed to amend its answer to deny
manufacture of water slide after P’s SOL ran
Mistake concerning party identity
Worthington v.
Wilson (wrist injury from arrest) – FRCP 15(c) does not allow amendment to
add a previously unknown party, which does not involve a mistake concerning the
identity of the proper party
Application=
DETERRING ABUSIVE
PLEADINGS
(lawyer accountability)
Federal Rule 11 requires the attorney to sign “every
pleading, motion and other paper” prepared for the client.
In garden variety
lawsuits you don’t need verification.
Verification means you are under oath that the things you claim are true
to the best of your knowledge, after reasonable investigation.
Anything under oath is subject to perjury.
Rule 23 makes certain types of complaints subject to verification
requirements. In garden variety
lawsuits you won’t be guilty of perjury if you didn’t look at the complaint
carefully to make sure it was right.
An attorney is entitled to rely on the objectively
reasonable representations made by his client—he doesn’t have to certify that
the client’s representations were well-grounded in fact, just that a reasonable
inquiry showed the factual contentions made by the client had evidentiary
support.
Rule 11
(a)
every pleading, written notice or other paper must be
signed by one attorney or if no attorney, signed by the party or else it is
stricken from the record unless it is corrected promptly Requires the filing
party to continue to monitor the validity of the contents of every signed paper
as the case proceeds
(b)
the attorney or party certifies that to the best of
their knowledge, the information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry
Requires attorneys to make a reasonable prefiling inquiry into both the facts
and the law (not subjective good faith tests, objective reasonableness test)
1.
is not presented for improper purpose (harass, cause
delay, increase cost of litigation)
2.
claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are
warranted by law (has to argue concerning existing law)
3.
allegations/contentions have evidentiary support or are
likely to have support after discovery
4.
denials of contentions are based on evidence or are
reasonably based on a lack of info or belief
(c)
IF (b) has been violated, court may sanction the
attorney, law firm or party that violated or are responsible for the violation
Doesn’t have to be monetary sanctions but can be.
Nonmonetary sanctions: disbar, humiliation (chewed out by the judge),
publish in local paper that you violated Rule 11 and were reprimanded by judge.
Whatever sanction is imposed is limited to what is
sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct by others similarly situated.
When the Attorney Signs a Pleading, He is Verifying:
1)
it has evidentiary support
2)
not for improper cause
3)
is warranted by law
4)
the denials have evidentiary support.
To Claim a Party
has Violated Rule 11 You Can:
1)
Make a Motion
o
Describe conduct that violated subdivision (b)
o
Serve the violating party according to Rule 5
o
Motion cannot be filed or presented to the court
UNLESS within 21 days of the service, the motion was not withdrawn or corrected.
Safe harbor means that the court
doesn’t hear about the complaint until you gave your opponent 21 days to
withdraw what you are opposed to and if they do withdraw it, you withdraw the
motion. No sanction if opponent withdraws.
o
Court may grant party prevailing on the motion
expenses and attorney’s fees incurred for presenting or opposing the motion
2)
Court Initiated
o
Court may enter an order describing the conduct
that appears to violate (b)
o
Party accused has to who why it has not violated
(b)
Reasonable reliance on information client provides (Hadges
v. Yonkers Racing Corp. – blackballed jockey)
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FEDERAL
COURT) (specified in Article 3 and 28 USC §1331—court of limited
jurisdiction. Constitution must
have given the court the capacity to take the case & an act of Congress must
have supplied it)
U.S. district courts have limited SMJ under A3, can only
hear cases arising under U.S. Constitution, federal law or treaties.
FEDERAL V STATE
COURTS
2 WAYS FEDERAL
COURTS GET SMJ:
WHO DECIDES WHERE
TO SUE?
DETERMINING THE
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
To determine whether P met the jurisdictional amount, the
rule is that the sum claimed by P controls if the claim is apparently made in
good faith and there is some legal
possibility of recovering the minimum amount.
o
It must appear to be legal certainty that the
claim is really for less than the $75K.01 to justify dismissal.
o
Counterclaim amounts don’t matter, only based on
P’s claim
o
If only 1P and 1D, all claims can be aggregated
between them to satisfy jurisdictional amount
o
If 1P and xDs, only the claims were Ds are
jointly liable can be combined
o
If xPs and 1D, the claims can be aggregated if
there is common ownership in the claims
3 Different Approaches:
1) Only the value to P may be used
2) Value to P exceeds the requirement amount regardless of
the value to D
o
From the viewpoint of the party seeking to invoke
federal jurisdiction
3) Look at the pecuniary result to either party which the
judgment would directly produce.
The party asserting diversity jurisdiction has the burden
of proving its existence. A
plaintiff who prefers to litigate in state court rather then federal court may
attempt to destroy diversity of citizenship to make removal to federal court
impossible for D.
Why do we have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction?
1)
Avoid discrimination against out-of-state residents in
state courts
2)
availability of a federal tribunal afforded some measure
of security for investors developing in other parts of the country
Criticisms of Diversity Jurisdiction:
1)
Congestion diversity cases case in federal courts
2)
Application of state law by federal judges is
unnecessary, wasteful and inappropriate.
a.
State courts are authoritative on matters of substantive
state law. Federal courts would have aim to follow state court decisions which
is an unnecessary function or service.
3)
For federal courts to decide cases arising under state
law upsets state autonomy
4)
Diverting litigation to federal courts may hinder the
development of state law
5)
Diversity jurisdiction diminishes incentives for state
courts to reform
Praise for Diversity Jurisdiction:
1)
Implements Constitutional guarantee that citizens of
each state are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the
several states
2)
Claim federal court is superior to state courts—get as
many cases out of state courts as possible
3)
Having both state and federal courts working to resolve
disputes creates competition between the 2 systems that acts to spur higher
standard of justice
4)
Quiets the fear of investors that local prejudice may
exist but giving them another court to adjudicate in
28 USC §1332 Diversity Jurisdiction
Rule of “Complete
Diversity”= there is no diversity jurisdiction if any P is a citizen of the
same state as any D—no matter how many parties are involved in the litigation. P
can be from the same state as another P.
Congress enacted 2 statutes that expanded the reach of
diversity jurisdiction for certain kinds of large scale, state law tort
actions
DETERMINING
CITIZENSHIP
Domicile= place of true, fixed and permanent home
and principal establishment and to which he has the intention of returning.
(evidence may be registration to vote, drivers license)
A change in domicile may be effected only by
1) Taking up residence in a different domicile
2) With the intention to remain there
Citizenship of a Corporation:
EFFECT OF LACK OF
DIVERSITY
DETERMINING FEDERAL
QUESTION 28 USC §1331
The suit has to arise under the Constitution, defenses are
employed by D and not part of the cause of action. None of the defenses which D
may set up are taking into consideration unless there is first a federal
question. Only P’s statement of the cause of action shows whether or not it
involves a federal question.
Well-Pleaded
Complaint Rule: The federal question must be raised in the complaint,
federal questions raised in the answer are not sufficient. Don’t apply to cases
appealed to SC
SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIMS
& PARTIES
P is required to try his whole cause of action and his
whole case at once. A cause of
action isn’t facts but the unlawful violation of a right which the facts show—if
it is a single legal wrong, it is a single cause of action.
Even if there are multiple possible grounds for the wrong, if it cause
the same injury, it is but one cause of action.
1)
28 USC §1367= once a federal court has
jurisdiction over a claim (either through diversity or federal question) then it
may hear all other claims arising under the same case or controversy. The court
isn’t limited to adjudicating the federal question alone—can hear cases based on
state law.
2)
Purpose - promotes judicial economy , allows all
related controversies to be decided in one proceeding
3)
If SMJ is Based Upon
(ii)
Federal Question—supplemental jurisdiction is
unlimited but is discretionary. NOT P’S RIGHT
Three Part Test:
o
If there are 2 distinct grounds for relief, the
federal claim must be substantial to
support federal question jurisdiction
o
Federal and non-federal claims
must derive from a common controversy
o
Federal and non-federal claims must be such that
P would expect to try them in one
proceeding
(iii)
Only
Diversity Jurisdiction—supplemental jurisdiction is limited
o
No
supplemental over claims by P against person made parties under Impleader,
Necessary Joinder, Permissive Joinder or Intervention if such persons would
defeat complete diversity
4)
Declining
Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 USC §1367(c)
Supplemental jurisdiction is exercised unless:
o
Claims raise a novel or complex issue of state
law
o
Claim predominates over the claim which federal
court has original jurisdiction The state claims may be dismissed without
prejudice and left for the state courts to resolve.
o
Federal court dismissed all the claims over which
it had original jurisdiction leaving only issues of state law
o
Look to see if Congress has expressly or by
implication negated the exercise of jurisdiction over the particular nonfederal
claim
o
Exceptional circumstances
o
Pendent Jurisdiction
§
P w/
jdxn-suff. claim (usu FQ) could join related claim ag same D, even if 2d claim
not w/n ct’s SMJ
§
Aldinger v.
Howard.
P brought suit ag officer of WA and sought to join county as an add'l D.
·
Court
refused to apply pendent jurisdiction to an additional party to whom no
independent basis of fed jurisdiction existed.
·
=Limited
approach to pendent party jurisdiction.
·
Very
different to permit P, who has asserted a claim ag 1 D w/ respect to which there
is fed juris, to join an entirely diff D on the basis of a state law claim over
which there is independent basis of fed jurisdiction simply b/c his claim ag the
1st D and his claim ag 2nd D derive from a common nucleus of operative fact
o
Ancillary Jurisdiction
§
Party
(usu D) could assert a related claim ag another D, the P, or a 3rd party, even
though the 2nd claim was not itself w/in the court's jurisdiction
§
Finley v.
United States.
P's husband and 2 children were killed when their plane struck electric
power lines while landing in SD.
Filed suit alleging negligence under fed law.
P was not allowed to later amend complaint to allege state law tort
claims.
·
Even
where there was exclusive fed jurisdiction over a fed claim ag 1 D, Court held
that there could be no juris over a related, nonfederal claim ag a nondiverse
party b/c a grant of juris over claims involving particular parties does not
itself confer juris over additional claims by or against diff parties.
·
Agreed
to limited approach in Aldinger
and casted doubt on all extensions of ancillary jurisdiction to claims ag added
parties w/out express congressional authorization.
Common nucleus of
operative fact
REMOVAL
(Defendant’s ability to get his defense heard in federal court.
All D other than nominal parties must join the petition for removal.
Only D can remove, P cannot remove)
Under diversity SMJ, removal is ordinarily proper where 1)
no defendant is a citizen of the state in which a diversity action had been
commenced, and 2) all of the defendants concur in seeking removal.
Where a suit is properly commenced in a state court and
“federal claim” SMJ is satisfied, the action may be removed to the U.S. district
court in which the judicial district that encompasses the state court if 1) all
the Ds join in the petition for removal and 2) removal is sought w/n 30 days of
the time the moving party received service of process.
28 USC §1441 & 1446
Removal= moving from a state court to a federal court (can’t remove from federal
court to state court)
1) more familiar with federal law
2) less bias to local interest, lack of prejudice against
federal law
3) more independent judges—not elected, appointed
4) encourages uniformity
P can avoid federal-removal jurisdiction by pleading only
state claims or by joining parties who will destroy diversity
3 Exceptions:
VENUE
(location/particular court and geography the case will be heard in—this is
defined by statute)
Before venue is decided 1) personal jurisdiction is
decided, 2) subject matter jurisdiction is decided.
Then comes the venue decision.
Assuming PJ and SMJ are proper, the court must decide the
proper venue.
If there is
personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction, there is always venue
where D is domiciled—28 USC §1391.
A state venue rule allocates judicial business within a
state. A federal venue rule
allocates judicial business within the nation.
If improper venue, then court can transfer to other U.S.
district court or dismiss suit.
13 Fact
Situations that May Determine Venue:
1)
subject of the action (where the subject of the action
is located) trial convenience
2)
where the cause of action arose for the convenience of
witnesses
3)
where some fact is present or happened
4)
where D resides for convenience of D since P controls
the suit, this give D some leeway
5)
where D is doing business
6)
where D has an office or place of business
7)
Where P resides
8)
Where P is doing business
9)
Where P may be found—right of action follows the person
10)
Where D may be summoned or served
11)
in county designated by P’s complaint
12)
in any county
13)
Where seat of government is located—reserved for action
by or against the government for the convenience of the government
If jurisdiction exists because of diversity of citizenship
only (28 USC 1391 (a)(1), venue is proper
1)
where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State
2)
where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of the property is situated
3)
Fallback venue a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced
If jurisdiction exists because of a federal question only,
venue is proper
1)
where any D resides, if all reside in the same
state
2)
where a substantial part of
events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property
is situated
3)
Fallback venue where D is found (can be served
with process)
*fallback venue applies only if the first 2 bases do not
apply
Forum Non
Conveniens (requires there to be another more convenient forum where P can
obtain adequate relief)
On motion of any party, an action pending in a U.S.
district court (meaning current venue is proper) may be transferred to any other
U.S. district court where the case could have originally been commenced, if the
“convenience of the parties and witnesses” and “…the interest of justice” so
requires.
If P is a foreign citizen seeking a forum in the US because
of the more liberal rule, Court are less solicitous.
Change in law inquiry—if the remedy provided by that
alternative forum would be inadequate or unsatisfactory that there would be no
remedy at all, then the uufavorable change in law is given substantial weight.
Piper Aircraft Co.
v. Reyno (aircraft crash in Scotland) – Possibility of unfavorable change in
law alone should not bar dismissal on FNC