FEDERAL QUESTION - 1331

*CITIZENSHIP IS IRRELEVANT/NO AMMT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT

What do we need?
1. Need a case that ARISES UNDER FEDERAL LAW
2. How do we know if it does that? Remember: Well Pleaded Complaint Rule (Look @ Claim
only)
3. This Rule means the court looks ONLY at the Complaint filed, NOT ANYTHING FROM THE
DEFENDANT; and consider ONLY the complaint itself, not anything else the plaintiff adds
4. Plaintiffs usually add other stuff in their complaint, but we look ONLY TO THE CLAIM!!!
--- TO APPLY WPC RULE  ASK YOURSELF: IS P ENFORCING A FEDERAL
RIGHT?
Mottley – The plaintiffs were given lifetime passes on a railroad because they suffered in a crash with the
railroad and so the company let them ride for free for life. Congress later passed a law that stated
Railroads cannot honor free passes. The Railroad now stops honoring the free passes because of the
federal law. In their complaint:
1. They said RR breached their contract
2. AND stated that the new federal law did not apply to them

Can this case go to Federal court under Federal Question? NO!!!! Only complaint matters in federal
question jurisdiction, not an anticipated defense. The Mottley’s were not enforcing a right under that law,
they were just claiming that it did not apply to them.
Three questions usually arise to determine FQ:
1. Is there a federal issue at all?
2. If so, does it “give rise” to the plaintiff’s claim?
3. Is there a fed. issue that is not the basis of the claim, but is sufficiently IMPT. to “federalize” the
case?

Challenging Federal SMJ

(1) Move for dismissal invoking either Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6)
® In addressing these motions,the court has said that if there’s any arguable basis for a federal
claim, the district court should examine it under 12(b)(6)
® Just like PJ, once SMJ has been decided by the court, the parties are precluded from
challenging that issue again.

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 1367 (arises while assessing SMJ)

® This does not get a CASE into Federal Court. This is how it comes up:
® CASE ALREADY IN FEDERAL COURT: There is a case in Federal Court and in that case there
are additional claims
® EVERY CLAIM MUST HAVE FEDERAL SMJ
Ex. impleader claims, crossclaims, and counterclaims.
® Ask for EVERY claim, does it invoke Federal Question or Diversity? If so, then that is great.
® If it does NOT, you might be able to get it in under Supplemental Jurisdiction. 1367
Gibbs – this case involved labor disputes in the coal mines of Virginia. In this case: Plaintiff (TN)  sues
Defendant (TN) UNDER Federal Labor Law [claim 1] FQ
 sues Defendant (TN) State Law [claim 2]
If the claims share a common nucleus of operative facts. In other words, are they from the same “real
world
event”... the same transaction or occurrence? Is it the same case or controversy?
1367
Section 1367: This is how we handled supplemental jurisdiction today:
i. Does Section 1367(a) grant supplemental jurisdiction over this claim?
a. The answer is “Yes” if it meets Gibbs—if claims share a common nucleus of operative facts. ii. Does
1367(b) take away the supplemental jurisdiction?
a. Applies only in diversity cases, NOT federal question; AND
b. It only kills supplemental jurisdiction over certain claims by plaintiffs.
1. Claims by plaintiff against a party joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24. 2. Claims by Rule 19 plaintiffs.
3. Claims by plaintiff intervenors.
c. No 3rd parties can be introduced that would destroy diversity. iii. Section 1367 allows federal courts to
assert jurisdiction over:
a. State-law claims and additional parties related to the federal question claims over which the court
already has jurisdiction because they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact;
b. Compulsory counterclaims—not permissive ones;
c. Joinder of additional parties to compulsory counterclaims;
d. Crossclaims by one defendant against another;
e. Impleader of third-party defendants but not claims by the original plaintiff against third-party
defendants;
f. Multiple plaintiffs who join under permissive joinder, but multiple defendants under Rule 20 are not
covered; g. Unnamed class action plaintiffs
c. 1367(c): Supplemental Jurisdiction is discretionary. A court may refuse to exercise it because: i. The
claim arises from a novel or complex issue of state law;
ii. The state claim substantially predominates over the federal claim;
iii. The court has dismissed the federal claim;
A. BUT—If the case has gotten pretty far (e.g. through discovery), the court may use its discretion and
not dismiss.
iv. Other compelling reasons.
d. States often have “savings” statutes that toll the statute of limitations to give plaintiffs a limited time
to re-file in state
court if it turns out they were wrong about the “federal” claims.
- In case states don’t have the statutes, 1367(d) gives a 30 day period after the dismissal.
SUPPLEMENTAL J
when a claim is properly before a federal court, the court may have supplemental J over
additional claims against existing parties or against additional parties. If you are
presented with such additional claims or parties, consider the following issues:
 Constitutional limits of federal judicial power – the federal court may exercise
J over the additional claims only if they are part of the same constitutional
case, which usually depends on whether the additional claims arise out of the
 same common nucleus of operate fact as those within the federal court’s
original J.
 Special limits on supplemental J in diversity cases – to safeguard the complete
diversity requirement, supplemental J is limited when Ps want to use it in cases
that fall within diversity J.
 Discretionary decline of J – even of supplemental K is authorized by statute, the
district court has discretion to decline to exercise it due to the complexity of
state law, because the state law claim substantially predominates, or because
the court has dismissed the claim over which it had original J.
IV. Supplemental Jurisdiction – § 1367 - Claims going into cases already in federal court
1. Case is already in federal court. May be additional claims. For every claim in federal court, there
must have federal SMJ. If no federal SMJ, need supplemental jurisdiction
2. Gibbs - When a fed court takes jurisdiction, it takes jurisdiction over an entire case. There is supp
jurisdiction over the claim because it is part of the case that got into federal court
a) ***"You get supplemental jurisdiction if the claim shares a common nucleus of operative
fact with the claim that got the case into federal court."***(CNOOF)
3. Section 1367 - Supplemental Jurisdiction- 2 steps
a. 1367(a)-Allows SJ-If meets Gibbs, “common nucleus of operative fact” (broad)
b. 1367(b)-Limits SJ-applies only in diversity SMJ! Limits SJ on Ps claims, not Ds
● No SJ for P's claims against persons joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24
● Over claims under Rule 19 Ps
● Over claims Rule 24 intervener Ps
c. 1367(c) Fed Court can still decide to not hear that claim. If they are just tagged on
d. (d) Federal savings statute, 30 days to file after it was dismissed
4. This avoids risk of inconsistent results, and inefficiencies of 2 different lawsuits
5. Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367): A case that invokes federal SMJ - diversity of
citizenship, alienage, or federal question- might include individual claims or issues that do not.
6. For any claim where the federal court has original jurisdiction, it may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state claims that “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III”
Subsections (b) and (c) give specific exceptions
7. ○ (b) In diversity jurisdiction case, no supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse joined parties ○
(c) No supp jur if the state law claim is particularly complex or dominates over the fed claim