You are on page 1of 5

Federal question Jurisdiction Harms v.

. Eliscu 1338 Patents, plant variety protection copyrights, mask works, trademarks and unfair competition. (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases. (b) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent, plant variety protection or trademark laws. (c) Subsections (a) and (b) apply to exclusive rights in mask works under chapter 9 of title 17, and to exclusive rights in design s under chapter 13 of title 17, to the same extent as such subsections apply to copyrights. Equitable relief: That species of relief sought in a court with equity powers as, for example, in the case of one seeking an injunction or specific performance instead of money damages. Declaratory judgment: statutory remedy for the determination of a justiciable controversy where the is in doubt as to his legal rights. filed 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2) motions for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Lower court found the Jurisdictional Issue to be treated as turning solely on whether the complaint alleged any act or threat of copyright infringement. Since all parties were citizens of the same state, the court found that there were not jurisdictional issues, but rather focused on whether the claim included any federal issue. Justice Holmes:Creation test: a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. Ex. Injury to a business involving slander of a patent, whether it is a wrong or not depends upon the law of the State where the act is done so that the suit did not arise under the patent laws. Pg. 305 Exception: State law may create a right to sue, but incorporates a federal element-in that case, may be able to bring suit in federal court. In many infringement suits that depend only on some point of fact and require no construction of federal law, no other explanation may exist.

Holding: if any aspect of the suit requires an interpretation of the copyright act, the complaint does not reveal it. court affirms lower court decision. No federal question presented, and so, federal court does not have jurisdiction.

Action arises under the copyright act if and only if: 1. The complaint is for a remedy expressly granted by the act, 2. Asserts a claim requiring construction of the act, or 3. Presents a case where a distinctive policy of the act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim. There has to be some federal issue included in complaint. Rule 8(a) Mottley Rule: In order to start case in federal district court under federal question, the federal issue has to be part of s original complaint as it appears in the well pleaded complaint. A well pleaded complaint includes only what will have to prove to win. It does not include anticipated defense. If federal issue comes up by the defense, complaint cannot include or mention the federal question.

This is an example of federal court policing federal jurisdiction when federal issue did not arise out of the original complaint. Federal Question 1331: The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Policy Issue: why have it? 1.) State hostilities to Federal rights 2.) Uniformity in Federal Law 3.) Judicial Expertise. Subject Matter Jurisdiction States Courts: 1. Limited jurisdiction- can only hear certain kinds of cases, but may also be concurrent. Ex. Small claims, probate, divorce. 2. General jurisdiction-can hear any kind of case 3. Concurrent jurisdiction- can bring suit in either court. May facilitate forum shopping. 4. Exclusive jurisdiction- can only hear certain kinds of cases. Federal Courts: Governed by Article III. Elements: 1.) Objections to SMJ cannot be waived. - Cannot allow an individual to mess with the balance of power. 2.) Judges will raise SMJ sua sponte (on its own)

- Diversity of citizenship with damages amounting to more than $75,000.00 3.) Dismissal for lack of SMJ is NOT a dismissal on the merits. - Just means that people should take their claim to the correct court.

Private Rights of Action Suits brought by private litigants against private persons allegedly acting in violation of a statute.

4 part test for determining whether a private right of action should be implied from a federal statute that does not expressly provide for a private remedy: 1. Does the statute create a federal right in favor of the , 2. Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one, 3. Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply a remedy for the , 4. Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the states, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law. Merrell Dow v. Thompson Substantiality component:

, residents of Scotland and Canada brought suit in state court in Ohio, against , pharmaceutical manufacturer, claiming a defective product. brought suit in Ohio state court because already had home court advantage, and could not remove to federal court.- could not remove on jurisdiction grounds. then removed the case on federal question grounds. can only remove in case could have started in federal court. District court held that the complaint alleged a cause of action arising under federal law because a federal statute existed under the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. (FDCA). 6th circuit court of appeals reversed stating that: the FDCA does not create or imply a private right of action for individuals injured as a result of violations of the act. Federal question jurisdiction would, thus, exist only if s right to relief depended necessarily on a substantial question of federal law. Because the jury could find negligence on the part of Merrell Dow without finding a violation of the FDCA, the s causes of action did not depend necessarily upon a question of federal law. Pg. 310

The Supreme Court followed the Justice Holmes statement that a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. Litigation provoking problem: the presence of a federal issue in a state-created cause of action. Congress did not intend a private federal remedy for violations of the statute that it enacted. If there existed relief for a federal private cause of action, it would undermine the congressional intent to conclude that the federal courts might nevertheless exercise federal-question jurisdiction and provide remedies for violations of that federal statute solely because the violation of the federal statute is said to be a rebuttable presumption or a proximate cause under state law, rather than a federal action under federal law. Pg.311.

Supreme Court concludes that a complaint alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state cause of action, when congress has determined that there should be no private, federal cause of action for the violation, does not state a claim arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States 1331. Pg, 312 Federal SMJ-outline I. Article III 2 Judicial power - Diversity and federal question cases. - To start a case in federal district (trial) courts, congress has to pass statute to allow it. Statutory authority. a. Diversity 1332 1. Complete diversity. has to be from different states, from another. a. Citizenship of individual. Ex. Domicle, presence and intent to stay b. Citizenship of corporation. Based on state of incorporation, and principle place of business (nerve center) c. Amount in controversy. Must exceed $75,000. b. Federal question 1331 1. Mottley Rule: In order to start case in federal district court under federal question, the federal issue has to be part of s original complaint as it appears in the well pleaded complaint. 2. Holmes creation test governs most cases. - a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. Ex. Injury to a business involving slander of a patent, whether it is a wrong or not depends upon the law of the State where the act is done so that the suit did not arise under the patent laws. 3. Rare case in which state law claim includes a federal element, the federal issue must be substantial and contested has to matter.

Policy arguments- in favor of federal jurisdiction argue: uniformity, state hostility, judicial expertise. In favor of state jurisdiction argue: Federalism. Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367 , United Mine Workers of America , Gibbs Claims- suing under fed statute 303 under labor law, and state law tort claims-breach of contract. Issue: whether is able to reconcile both state and federal claims in one complaint in federal court. Pg.327 defining scope of thing brought into federal court. Rule: the state and federal claims must arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. Pg. 328 Holding: because state law claim arises out of a common fact with federal law then suit may be brought in federal court. Vocabulary: supplemental jurisdiction 1. 2. 3. 4. Pendent jurisdiction-multiple claims that a brings in complaint Pending claim jurisdiction- bringing multiple claim on particular . Pendent party jurisdiction- brings claim against multiple parties. Ancillary jurisdiction- brings claim against , and includes a 3rd party.

Thursday: 338-343, 350-355, 362-368 Supp. 1367 and 1441(a)(b)(c)