Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
California Bar Exam Lecture Notes - Federal Civil Procedure

California Bar Exam Lecture Notes - Federal Civil Procedure

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13 |Likes:
Published by Lal Legal
Kaplan lecture notes from the July 2013 California Bar Exam on Federal Civil Procedure
Kaplan lecture notes from the July 2013 California Bar Exam on Federal Civil Procedure

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Lal Legal on Jun 11, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
I. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
A.In General
(OL I.A.)1.To adjudicate a case, the court must have jurisdiction (power) to do so. Remember three concepts related to subjectmatter jurisdiction.a. !eneral " #ourt can handle an$ %ind o& case b. Limited " 'ederal courts have limited jurisdiction and can preside over &ederal uestions or cases in diversit$ c. #oncurrent jurisdiction " A case can be heard in state or &ederal court .Two %e$ points to remember in &ramin* an answer about &ederal jurisdiction+a. ust be a statutor$ basis &or each claim a*ainst each part$ to be in &ederal court b. ust be a jurisdictional *rant to hear the case (1)- 11+ &ederal uestion jurisdiction()- 1+ diversit$ cases()- 1/0+supplemental jurisdiction
B.Original Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Federal Courts
(OL I..)1.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
23 4.5.#. - 116a.asic rule+ 7oes a case arise under &ederal law8 b.7eterminin* &ederal uestion jurisdiction+(1) 'ederal statute has created private ri*ht o& action () wellpleaded complaint rule+ 7e&endant claims &ederal de&ense but plainti&& cannot preemptivel$ claim anticipated &ederal de&ense to sue in &ederal court because that violates wellplead complaint rule. I& case couldn9t be brou*ht into &ederal court in the &irst instance, it cannot be removed to &ederal court () state uestions involvin* substantial uestion o& &ederal law ma$ be su&&icient+ : is suin* in state law ne*li*ence action, which reuires resolvin* &ederal uestion .
Diersit! Jurisdiction
23 4.5.#. - 16a.
A"ount in Controers!
+(1) ore than ;0<,=== () 5tandard+ #ourt will dismiss an action based on diversit$ i& it appears to a
legal certaint!
 that the claim is less than ;0<,=== () #laims ma$ be a**re*ated but multipart$ claims ma$ not be a**re*ated b.
Diersit! of #itigants
+(1) #omplete diversit$ dispute must involve citi>ens o& di&&erent states () inimal diversit$ () #omplete diversit$ is necessar$ to assert jurisdiction ?@A:L?
$If t%ere are four I# citi&ens joined as 'laintiffs suing t(o IA citi&ens) t%ere is co"'lete diersit! because no state a''ears on bot% side of t%e *+.
?@A:L?
$If t%ree 'laintiffs) one fro" I#) one fro" IA) one fro" MI) sue defendants) one fro" F# and one fro" IA) t%ere is no co"'lete diersit! because IA a''ears on bot% sides of t%e *+.
c.
Deter"ining citi&ens%i' of 'arties
+(1)
Cor'orations
+
1
FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE
 
5tate with principal o& business and where the$ are incorporated.
()
Indiiduals
+
!eneral rule is that individuals are citi>ens o& the state where the$ were last domiciled, with intent to remain inde&initel$. 5pecial rule+ The citi>enship o& an individual who is administrator or eecutor o& an estate is determined b$ the citi>enship o& the decedent
C.Su''le"ental Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
23 4.5.#. - 1/06 (OL I.#.)1.Bow $ou %now there is a supplemental jurisdiction issue+ ultiple claims and one o& the claims will be able to survive in &ederal court and one part would not survive in &ederal court.'irst step+  As% $oursel& i& the claims are arisin* out o& the same case or controvers$ i.e. a common nucleus o& operative &act a.I& $es, then+ore anal$sis is reuired b.I& no, then+no supplemental jurisdiction .5econd step+ Is the sole basis &or jurisdiction diversit$8 a.I& no, then+5upplemental jurisdiction eists b.I& $es, then+ #on*ress sa$s there is no supplemental jurisdiction i& the : is tr$in* to *et around the amount o& controvers$ Reuirement in a diversit$ case b$ assertin* supplemental jurisdiction C.?ven i& supplemental jurisdiction eists, the court is not reuired to eercise it.discretionar$ De$ words in each step+E Is it a supplemental jurisdiction problem8E Are the claims at issue part o& the same case or controvers$ i.e. common nucleus o& operative &act8E Is there a &ederal uestion8E #ourt discretion to decline the claim
 
,O/,0/ICA#
 Anne, a resident o& #ali&ornia, sues the 4.5. !overnment in &ederal district court under the 'ederal Tort #laims Act a&ter her husband and two children are %illed when their plane crashed into an electric power cord. The ori*inal claim a*ainst the 4.5. !overnment &or &ailin* to provide adeuate runwa$ li*hts ma$ onl$ be brou*ht in &ederal court. Anne includes the cit$ o& 5an 7ie*o and the #ali&ornia utilit$ compan$ as de&endants in the action, alle*in* related state claims. oth #ali&ornia de&endants move to dismiss based on lac% o& jurisdiction. Bow should the court rule on the motion8
2
?@A TI:
 
 
#ourt should dismiss the motions. :art o& this case can sta$ in &ederal court as there is &ederal uestion here under the 'ederal Tort #laims Act. ut part o& the case cannot survive in &ederal court alone as there is no diversit$ between the plainti&&s and de&endants, who are &rom #ali&ornia. This appears to then be a problem o& supplemental jurisdiction. The &acts seem to arise &rom common nucleus o& operative &act. The claims arise &rom plane crash so there is a common nucleus. Anne also has &ederal uestion jurisdiction in &ederal court, so supplemental jurisdiction eists to consider state law uestions.
D.1e"oal and 1e"and of State Court Actions
(OL I.7.)1.
1e"oal
a.!eneral rule+
 
 An action brou*ht in state court ma$ be removed b$ the de&endant to &ederal court i& the cause ori*inall$ could have been brou*ht b$ the plainti&& in &ederal court. b.?ceptions+(1) i& : could have brou*ht the case in &ederal court onl$ based on diversit$ jurisdiction " reuest &or removal on *rounds o& diversit$ jurisdiction will not be *ranted i& an$ o& the de&endants in the case is a citi>en o& the &orum state () i& there are multiple de&endants, all de&endants must join in removin* to &ederal court c.Timin* issues+ the case should be removed within = da$s. I& the case becomes removable solel$ on diversit$, it cannot be removed i& it has been more than a $ear. .
1e"and
+ &ederal court would remand i& case was removed improperl$ or ma$ &ind a &orum selection provision en&orceable.. motion to remand must be made within = da$s o& removal notice and de&endant has burden o& proo& that removal was proper.
,O/,0/ICA#
Fohn resides in the eastern district o& Gew Hor%. Be &iles a lawsuit a*ainst his ph$sician, 7r. Da$, &or medical malpractice in state court. 7r. Da$9s o&&ices are located in the southern district o& Gew Hor%, but he is domiciled in Gew Ferse$. Fohn9s action demands over ;1==,=== in dama*es. a$ 7r. Da$ have Fohn9s action removed to &ederal court8 I& so, to which court will it most li%el$ be removed8The case could have been brou*ht in &ederal court as there is diversit$ o& citi>enship and amount in controvers$ reuirement is met. 7r. Da$ is a citi>en o& Gew Ferse$. Fohn is resident o& Gew Hor% and sued the doctor in GH. I& a plainti&& could have brou*ht the case in &ederal court, a reuest &or removal on *rounds o& diversit$ jurisdiction will not be *ranted i& de&endants in the case is a citi>en o& the &orum state. Bere, we seem to not have this problem i& 7r. Da$ is onl$ &ound to be a citi>en o& Gew Ferse$. Be can remove the case to the &ederal court that *overns same *eo*raphical area as the state court where he has been sued.
0.2rits of
Habeas Corpus
1.hat a writ o
 habeas corpus
is and what it is not+ writ is a civil action a*ainst jailer that alle*es that reason &or con&inement is de&ective. It is not an appeal or to continue the criminal case. .!round &or *rantin* writs o&
habeas corpus
+ violation o& due process, violation o& ri*ht o& sel&incrimination, violation o& ri*ht a*ainst double jeopard$, violation o& the ri*ht a*ainst cruel and unusual punishment Limits+ ehaustion o& state remedies and within one $ear o& &inal jud*ment o& custod$
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->