You are on page 1of 4

Diversity Jurisdiction 28 USC 1332 complete diversity

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Domicile Test
Persons location where a party intends to remain indefinitely Residence necessary but not reqd Corporations state of incorporation and principle place of biz. Nerve center test the place of actual corp. direction Corp may change HQ in order to reach diversity if necc.


Federal Question 28 USC 1331 all actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S.


Constitutional Grant Article 3 Fed court power extends to: all Constitutional issues, laws and treaties made by U.S., admiralty, where US is a party.

------------------------------------------**Burden to prove citizenship is on party who raises the question**

Tests for Federal Question to test claims in a pleading Federal Ingredient fed law must be an ingredient in case Well-Pleaded Complaint P must rely on fed law as the source of their right to relief; is raising the fed issue necc.? Creation Test a suit arises out of the law that creates the cause of action" Household Rule Fed Q exists in a declaratory judgment if the P has alleged facts that demonstrate the D could file action in Fed. Ct. Grable Test a federal court ought to be able to hear claims recognized under state law that nonetheless TURN on a substantial question of fed. law.
The Test - 1. Claim must contain a contested fed issue 2. contested claim is substantial 3. contested issue indicates serious Fed interest 4. would not upset balance of fed&state judicial interests.

Complete Diversity
No plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant Dist. Cts. have Juris if: -Citz of diff states (MN v WI) -Citz of state + foreign (MN v. Canada) -citz of diff states w/ foreign addl parties (MN/France v. WI/Canada) -foreign state as plaintiff v. citz of state (Canada v. MN)

Supplemental Jurisdiction if a proper fed. issue has been raised, a fed. court may hear any RELATED state claim; must arise out of "a common nucleus of operative fact".; may not be unrelated; state claim may not predominate over fed claim; to the discretion of the court, NOT a P's right. Exclusive Jurisdiction issues of patent, copyright, maritime, bankruptcy, US-party, CANNOT be raised in state courts

Removal to Fed Court 1441(a) only entitled to remove if P complaint COULD HAVE initially been filed in Fed. Ct. Only by D's; ALL D's must agree Must remove w/in 30 days Limitations if D is sued in home forum, may not remove (state ct) can't remove to another state can't remove to another Fed. Dist. w/in state can't remove fed to state (ie if A sues B-both citz of MNover a state claim in state ct. = no removal b/c no diversity or FedQ) (ie if A sues B-of diff states or involving a FedQ- B could remove to Fed Ct.

Amount in Controversy
More than $75k claimed at pleading Must be a good faith amount, courts may dismiss ridiculous claims Aggregation of Claims P may add claims against 1 D (i.e. 50k battery + 50k assault) P may not add claims against multiple Ds Multiple Ps may not add claims against D(s) ***courts are divided when it comes to the "value" of the objects in declaratory judgments: use P's or D's value of the object??

Personal Jurisdiction
Personal J ability for the court to subject a D. to it's rulings
Pennoyer v. Neff P's are not free to bring suit wherever they choose; limits where a D can be req'd to defend a lawsuit

In Rem Jurisdiction (deals w/ attachment of property to show Personal J.)

Full: judgment is binding on everyone in the world Quasi: judgment is binding only to parties in the suit Quasi II: where property is unrelated to the claim Shaffer v. Heitner: when the only contact a D has with a forum state is property, the forum lacks PJ unless the min. contacts of Shoe are met. Constitutionality 14th Amdmt. Due Process Req'ment "Full Faith and Credit" 1738

State/Fed Long Arm Statutes State By Statute Fed Rule 4(k)(1)(A): Fed.Ct. may exercise PJ over a D only if the cts. of the state in which the Fed.Dist. sits could do so

MUST meet BOTH Statute and Const. Req'ments

Issues of Fair Play and Substantial Justice even if minimum contacts are met, courts must still consider (aka the reasonableness; would jurisdiction be fair?): convenience or burdens of both parties forum state's interests convenience of witnesses, records, evidence nature & quality of contacts judicial interests

Arising Out Of contacts must arise out of the claim to be sufficient Foreseeability could D foresee being hailed into the forum's court? VW Quality & Nature consider strength and nature of contacts. For Web-Sites:

Specific J Minimum Contacts: arises out of D's actions w/in state. may be a single act; may be continuous but limited. Because of the quality and nature of dealings. TESTS: Deliberate contact D must have made a deliberate choice to the state in meaningful way. Purposeful Availment did D purposefully avail themselves? a single solicitation w/in state is enough; unilateral activity by P not enough Effects Test did D intend the effects of actions: 1. intentional actions, 2. expressly aimed at forum, and 3. knew brunt of injury would be felt by someone w/in the forum state Calder Zippo Test (consider how site is used)

International Shoe "Defendant must

have sufficient minimum contacts within the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." General J J can exist from D's in-state contacts if contacts are continuous and systematic. usually applies to corp's Stream of Commerce D's conduct and connection w/ the forum state should be such that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed. At what point does the SofC stop? 1/2 say: req's clear evidence that D seeks market 1/2 say: sending goods in the SofC constitutes purposeful availment, regardless if maker knows final destination

Active: D is clearly doing biz w/ residents of forum Passive: site just gives info; sells nothing Interactive: requires closer exam., level of interactivity & commercial nature

Rules Generally
Requirements exist to ensure that a case is litigated in a court that is conveniently located and has some connection to the lawsuit to one or both parties.

Transfer 1404(a): Balancing Test: Dist. Ct. may transfer to (where it might have been brought) for: -Convenience of the parties & witnesses -in the interest of justice -TransferEE court uses the law from the TransferOR court [in Diversity cases only]. Dismissal/Transfer: 1406 Dist. Ct. shall dismiss any claim filed in wrong venue, or if in the interest of justice, transfer to where it should have been brought -TransferEE court does not use law from the TransferOR court Transfer Requirements/Tricks: a receiving court, where an action has been transferred and where it could have been brought must satisfy: 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction; and 2. Personal Jurisdiction; and 3. Venue. Limitations: Fed Cts. NEVER transfer to State Cts. State Cts. NEVER transfer to Fed Ct. State Cts. may not transfer to another State to avoid statute of limitations, transfers date back to the date of original filing

Forum Non Conveniens- CL doctrine; permits court to decline the use of jurisdiction in order to permit a suit to be filed in another, more convenient forum Courts look at both private and public interests for Transfer ("where interests of justice indicate the case should be tried elsewhere"): Often used where a case needs to be transferred internationally, where the courts in the US have no jurisdiction to transfer. availability and convenience of witnesses and parties location of counsel location of books and records cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses and other trial expenses place of alleged wrong possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted plaintiff's choice of forum applicable law in light of parties and transfer

1391 Venue Rules (a)(1)[diversity] and (b)(1)[federal question]: may be brought in a district when any D resides, assumes D won't be inconvenienced (a)(2)&(b)(2): Substantial Part of Events: may be brought where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim(s) occurred; assumes that district is likely to be efficient & convenient (a)(3)&(b)(3): Fallback Provisions: Where to bring a case if (1) or (2) fail. (c): Residence of D Corporation: a judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action was commenced...corp will reside in the district in which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to PJ"

"THE ORDER OF THINGS" Pleadings: The Complaint, Rule 8 (a): must be a short and complain statement stating the grounds for jurisdiction and P's entitlement to relief; allegation must give notice to D of what it is they are expected to defend Special Pleadings: Rule 9 (b) Fraud or Mistake (req's more detail) must contain specific facts (who, what, when, where) will hold only if reasonable person would deem probable malice protects fro unjustified claiming of fraud (out of spite for D or to harm D's reputation) Plausible Pleading Standards 2 part test Twombly: 1. Are allegations wellpleaded and factual? -Must be more than a mere conclusory statement Igbal: 2. Are well-pleaded allegations plausible? -Do they give rise to entitlement for relief? Allegations must at least be conceivable.

Amended Pleadings: Rule 15 Before Trial: (a)(1) w/out leave of of Ct.: any party may amend original pleading ONCE, w/in 21 days after service; Responsive Pleading, same rules apply (a)(2): with leave of Ct. or Opposing Party Consent when justice so requires During/After Trial: (b) Based on Objection @ Trial (cts. freely permit): Cts consider the following: 1. Reason for the amendment; 2. Amending party's due diligence 3. Any prejudice amendment might; 4. Whether amendment would prove cause futile to case. Relation Back: (c) any amendments date back to the date of orig. pleading if: 1. applicable statute of limitations allows, 2. amendment arises out of same set of facts, or 3. changes party name (see Rules). Defenses/Objections/Motions to Dismiss Only have 1 shot: (a)Timely Response: 21 days after service (e)Motion for a More Definite Statement: when the pleading is so ambiguous/vague; must be made BEFORE responsive pleading (f)Motion to Strike: Ct. may strike info in a pleading if it is: so unintelligible, redundant, or scandalous (b)Presenting Defenses: (1) Subject Matter J (may be raised @ any time) (2)-(5) Omnibus Defense Motions (2)Lack of Pers J (3)Improper Venue (4)/(5)Insufficient Process/Service (6) Failure to state a claim: not sufficiently specific..*** (h)(1)Omnibus Defense Motions applies to 12(b)(2-5) "must be raised first or else waived" 12(d): motions outside pleadings=summary judgment. all parties given reasonable opportunity to present all relevant material. Answering the Complaint: Rule 8 (b)D must either: Admit, Deny, or Lack Info or Knowledge Failing to respond on a claim=auto-admit (c)Affirmative Defenses Default Judgments: Rule 55 (a)When a party fails to respond/defend & shown by affidavit (c)Court may set aside an entry for default for GOOD CAUSE
Sanctions: Rule 11 "Safe Harbor" by presenting a paper to the court, counsel certifies: an inquiry is reasonable under the circumstances; not claimed for improper purpose (to harass or delay); claims are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument to modify; factual contentions have evidentiary support (or will be supported after inquiry). In handing out sanctions, Cts. consider: ability to pay; history of behavior; D's need for compensation; degree of frivolousness; willfulness of violation Steps for Granting Dismissal: For Failure to State a claim: 1. Ct. views allegation in light most favorable to P. 2. Ct. considers all allegations as if true 3. Accept all reasonable allegations as true 4. Limit consideration to only the complaint and any attached writings.

Service of Process: Rule 4 1. Prepare the Summons & Complaint 2. Serve, by a Non-Party adult 3. How? In person, at home with adult resident, authorized agent, by mail (although least preferred); OR whatever state law dictates. Must serve w/in 120 days of filing 4(m) Serving Corporations (c): when serving a corporation, the service must be made on an authorized agent.