This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Diversity: 1332 Supplemental- 1367
• Article III of the Constitution - must be same case or controversy • Look to Gibb test: Common nucleus of Operative Fact (CNOF)- same case or controversy
Removal - 1441
• 1441: Any matter fed. Cts have orig. jx can be removed Only D, only to Fed Fed decides NO appeal of remand •Complete Unanimity among D’s required •“well-pleaded complnt” applies (Caterpillar) •Remove only to fed ct. embracing state ct. where action pending
Source: Art III, but Sec. 1332 narrower b/c Federal creates cause of include amt. in controversy req. and action: express or Impliedif unsure can bring & complete diversity requirement dismissal on merits Complete Diversity
Federal law is central but claim not arise from it
• Federal Question: 1367(a) Orig. claim has Fed. JX and supp. claims are part of same case/controversy •(b): If removal based on (Gibbs) diversity - can NOT remove if any D is citizen of forum • Basically full reach of constitutional Federal defense or state authority anticipated federal •Removal OK even If st. ct. • Diversity Cases: 1367(b) supp. Jx defense (Mottley): did not have jx remove to NOT extend to: fed ct and dismiss (12 b 2) • Claims by P’s vs. parties joined Well pleaded under 14, 19, 20, 24 •1446: Procedure complaint rule • Claims by persons’ included as P’s •(b) W/N 30 days of service P Master of the complaint Amount in Controversy under 19 or 24 of 1st of summons or unless…Complete complaint • Min. amt. In controversy = $75K- met unless “legal • Otherwise inconsistent w/1332 preemption (Caterpillar) certainty” will not recover • Court Discretion 1367(c): may •Multiple D’s - cts. split if get decide NOT to exercise Jx if add’l 30 days; later D can • Value of injunctions- to either P or D (Glenwood) Note: Rule 8(a)(1): Complaint remand if w/in 30 days Novel issue of state law; • Aggregation: Single P can aggregate against single must have short statement of •Must still file w/n a year if D. But can’t aggregate claims of different P’s (Zahn). supp. claim >original claim grounds for subject matter JX removal based on diversity Counterclaims generally NOT offset; also issue w/ dismiss all claims w/ orig. jx; 1367 (b) and Zahn. exceptional circumstances Removal means 1447 Post-Removal venue rules DON’T Watch out for: patent infringement v. breach of K related to patent (c) Motion to remand w/in 30 days after file notice apply. Can only (d) Remands NOT appealable remove to area where Must have direct reliance on federal law for substantive right action is pending. (e) post-removal joinder which can destroy subj.mat jx. “Artful Pleading” to stay in ST crt when really can be removed b/c fed Court’s discretion remand (allow) or continue (NOT) issue
• Real persons: Citizenship = Domicile (last place intended to stay indefinitely/”mind/behind”) (Mas v. Perry) • Artificial Persons: • Corporations : Citizenship = State of Incorporation + Principle place of business • Place of Operations • Nerve Center • Total Activity/Primary Activity Test • Associations: citizens of ALL states where members are citizens • Improper/collusive assignment or joinder NOT permitted to defeat or create diversity • If non-diverse D’s joined after removal, may be remanded or joinder denied 1441 (c)
posters on door State interest in hearing the case Burden on Defendant Plaintiff interest in relief Judicial system intrst in efficient resolutn Shared interest of several states in • Directed at forum (Calder.Note Rule 12 . located • (B) Joined under Rule 14 or 19 and w/n 100 mls of ct.Personal Jurisdiction Federal Court Rule 4(K)(1) • (A) Subject to JX in state where Dist. Corp--Incorp. statute Rule 4(K)(2) or • Claim under federal law • No state has general Jx (good for foreign D’s • Exercise of Jx constitutionally/statutorily sound + Minimum Contacts with the US as a whole. domicile • Corporations: Incorporation. pres. nerve center. Ct. in -state service. O’Connors) • Balancing test (Burger King) • Applies to in rem Shaffer Objections: Either direct attack (special appearance) or collateral attack (allow default. driving) forwarding public policy • Stream of commerce: Gray (prob.“continuous and systematic” (Shoe) • Specific: 1) Claim arise/relate to contacts 2) Purposeful availment (McGee/Kulko/Keeton NOT Hanson) Minimum Contacts Reasonableness • • • • • NOTICE & SERVICE Rule 4 Mullane letters. doing biz .must object at first opportunity or waive .in state agent • Civil Status cases Basis • • • • Full extent of Constitution: CA Particular Circumstances: NY Specify exactly when can take JX Particulars but construed broadly: at full extent of constitution Long Arm Statute Constitutional Analysis • General: Persons..domic. By fed. challenge domestication) .5th Ammend State Court • Long Arm statute • Persons: Consent. Asahi—ads required. (bulge Jx) • (C) Joined under interpleader • (D)Auth. Mennonite address: Lehr “father”. consent . presence.
if no other district where action can be brought .can dismiss or transfer to 1404-any other district where could have been brought originally Forum Non Conveniens •·Discretionary power to Ct.if no district where action could be brought otherwise • Subject matter/Other:1391(b): (1) and (2) same as 1391(a) • (3) District where any D may be found.even if only specific jx for this claim.VENUE and forum non conveniens Venue1391/ 1404/1406 • Diversity: 1391(a) . to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum.treat district like a separate state for min.may not be proper venue • Resides in every district where the corp. contacts analysis • Aliens 1391(d): Any district • 1406 . (Piper) .If venue wrong or at discretion of the court .even if subject to personal jx in state . but also poss to use personal jx) • Corporate Defendants (not Ps) 1391 (c) : Defines corporate residence as particular District where D has contracts . is subject to personal jx .(served w/ process.Venue proper if • 1) Any D reside in the district provided all D’s reside in the state (“Reside” for maj of states = domicile) • 2) Judicial district where “transitory rule” eventsclaim took place or “local rule” property subject of action located • 3) District where any D subject to under personal jx .
use NY NOT PA>) Procedures in conflict? Yes No Apply Both .In Fed. Klaxton—choice of law <if PA choice of law sends to NY law.Byrd Balancing Test Yes Overriding Federal Interest (7th A rt to jury. <fed> silent on issue) Federal rule. Ct’s must apply state law ERIE No Arguably Procedural (Sibbach v. under Diversity JX .1) Forum shopping 2) inequitable admin of laws// modifies Guaranty Trust v.(Cohen v. if procedural. stat of limprocedural BUT outcome determinative) No No Apply Federal Law Apply State Law Apply Federal Law . Beneficial Life—stockholderspost security <state>. Interest • • • • • • Dice-FELA judge (ST)/jury (FD)fed FELA overriding intrst in jury Is the rule integral to the remedy? Is the rule part and parcel to the remedy Congress intended? Would state practice unduly interfere w/ P's opprtny to recover remedy? <FED> Felder—uniformity goal w/ liberal Federal pleading procedure <STATE> Johnson—interlocutory appeal is burden Make accommodation: Gasperini-2 separate Erie analyses: New Trstate b/c no rule on point. Law is not controlling.stdrd. due process. fed.) Outcome Determinative: (Hanna twin aims of Erie . Ct. liberal pleading. York—laches v. valid and on point No Yes Apply federal rule if 1) w/n rules enabling act 2) Constitutional (Hanna svc of process on point Rule 4 express requirements [broad interp] and L. AppealFed interest in review and separate Trial/Appeal . Able to accommodate both Yes Reverse Erie: Must have overriding fed. div btw judge/jury. negl. [construe narrowly] <Ragan-stare decisis. Walker Steel— Rule 3 NOT on point b/c not intended to relate to stat of lim.Where fed. res judicata? Yes No ByrdJdge/Jry decides if person was EEJURY 7th Am rt. Wilson—not substantive just b/c has to do w/ right. really procedural) Yes Clearly SubstantiveApply State law (Erie—willful v. div btw TC & AP.
Rule 18 D P • Must assert compulsory counterclaims .must be same case/controversy • Must assert compulsory counterclaim 13(a) against D1’s crossclaim • Once valid crossclaim/counterclaim.Rule 13(g) . may then add unrelated claims . permissive counterclaims Rule 13(b) Jx question D1 D2 • May assert cross-claim .must be same case/controversy • Once assert valid crossclaim.Rule 18 D2 D1 • May assert cross-claim .Rule 18 or assert permissive counterclaims 13(b) against D1 . may add unrelated claims .Rule 13(a) that arise out of same transaction or occurrence • May assert unrelated.Rule 13(g) .Joinder of Claims Possible Claims to be joined P D • Original Claim • May add additional unrelated claims .
can be waived .must be w/n 100 miles • Subj. Fed.24(b) Common question of law/fact + Discretion of court Join other P’s or make co-D’s Terr JX: Must have Jx over each D .If judgment in absence of party • (i) As practical matter impair protection of parties’ interest • (ii) impose multiple or inconsitent obligations + Mechanics Common question of law/fact Not need claims against all parties. frame judge. Q . Grounds req.If no complete relief in persons’ absence • 19(a)(2) . circuit split over P’s If they can’t be.decide each according to respective rights (1) Statute gives right (2) 3 -prong test • Interest in subj matter based on property or transaction • Ability to protect interest would be impaired • Inadequate representation Can they be joined? • Terr.Can not intervene as a Plaintiff and have subj.may be out of range even if jx could be constitutional 4(k)(1)(B) must be w/n 100 miles ?? Subj. JX . matter jx.No supp.always permitted.4(K)(1)(B) . Q .Rule 24 As of right . to service of process .note for purposes of diversity .permitted Diversity .no supp.Bulge Jx. non-divers Ds . Matter: Fed. Matter: Indep.24(a) Single Transaction Compulsory Joinder . To mitigate prejudice • Adequacy of remedy: Can adequate remedy w/ absense • Result of dismissal: Will adequate remedy if P dismissed Jurisdiction .Joinder of parties/Intervention Permissive Joinder Rule 20 Intervener . If break diversity • Prejudice: Extent prejudice absent party • Framing judgment: poss. but should be? Subj.Must be subj. Jx if join as P’s but yes if join as D’s • Venue: No join if make venue improper • Refusal: Can still be made involuntary P or Permissive .1367. Diversity .1367(b) . Matter Jx: Joinder can not deprive of jx .Rule 19 Should they be joined? • 19(a)(1) . Jx over statelaw claims v.
claim even if not diverse • Impleader claim . P and 3PP/Def •Original P can assert claims against 3PD •Must be related to orig. jx is based on diversity P v. 3PD . P/D suit •Defenses against orig. D •Independent juridisdictional requirement . Counterclaim • Never mandatory • Must claim actual relief • On counterclaim/cross-claim .not need to be related •Cross-claims against any other 3PD.must still have supp.prevent collusion b/t D and P to maintain diversity 2 unRelated 3PD 3PD v.can separate suits • NOT mandatory • 14(a) allows 3PD to assert: •Counterclaim against 3PP/Def. • When: Anytime after commencement .must be related •Claims against orig. claim b/t P and orig.if after 10 days of answer.Permission • ALWAYS exists under 13(g) b/c same transaction req. NOT affect jx over orig. D: Cross claim 13(g) D v. . need leave of court (liberal) • Derivative action: must be asserting 3rd party’s liability depends on D’s liability to orig. • Same Case/Controversy • Additional Claims: Once properly impleaded 3PD can assert other unrelated claims . D/P/new 3PD P Claims / Counterclaim • Original claim: Impleading 3PD by D. complaint or previous counterclaim . P + Other party 13(h) D v. 3PD 14(a) D 1 Related JX . If orig. P that arise out of same transaction as orig.18(a) • Denial: Can deny 1) Undue delay 2) Complication issues 3) Prejudice to P .D can join additional parties to the counter or crossclaim as long as joinder meets reqs. Jx • Usually will under 1367(b) since excludes parties joined by P’s under 14 • Venue: 3PD not taken into consideration 3PD Cross claim Counter claim D 3PD • 1367(b) If claims by P’s against parties joined under 14 . P.Same transaction + Common question law/fact. In Rule 20(a) . meets CNOF test and not excluded by 1367(b) • Must be related to P’s orig.Power D v.Rule 14 and 13(h) Joinder of Parties Rule/Mechanics .not have supp.same transaction/relate to property test from 13(a) Comp. Juris.
Summary Judgement .court can issue continuance for more discovery .Rule 56 Moving Party has Burden at trial .Rule 56(e) .P Burden of Production • Can not rely on the pleadings • Must present Affirmative Evidence Moving Party not have Burden at trial .D • Must point to specific places lacking in the record showing no GIMF Celotrex • Not require affirmative evidence Standard: No genuine issue of material fact an that moving party entitled to judgment based on undisputed facts. Liberty Lobby Quasi-Interlocutory Appeal: Rule 54(b) but appeal can be had only if express determination by judge that final judgment Opposing Motion for SJ • Must present affirmative evidence in substance but not form admissible at trial • If affidavits not available .56(f) • Can not rest on the pleadings if opposing motion for SJ . Partial SJ: Rule 56(d): SJ can be granted w/ respect to certain claims - • Who bears the risk of non-persuasion? Burden of Persuasion • All reasonable inferences viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party • Take account of burden at trial .Anderson v.
JMOL/ Directed Verdict Rule 50(a) After non-moving parties’ case in chief or at any time before sub. OR 2) Include evidence by MP that is not impeached /contradicted by opposing party evidence De Novo: Verdict insuff.BUT make JMAL motion before submission to jury • Based on evidence presented at trial • Must specify places in evidentiary record. to the jury. BUT.no affirmative evidence.not need to make at first opp. of the Abuse of Discretion (Gasperini) . allow motion after issue presented After jury verdict: w/n 10 days of entry of judgment . parties • MP NOT have burden at trial .Judgment as Matter of Law Rule Failure to 12(b)(6) State a claim: When Pre-answer motion . As matter of Law JMOL/ JNOV Rule 50(b) Rule 59 New Trial After jury verdict: w/n 10• Based on evidence presented at trial days of entry of judgment • Includes procedural factors • Viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party Great weight evidence.allow ammendment • Viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party No legally sufficient basis for a reas. in light most favorable to NMP. To ammend Trial Std Ap Std Plaintiff can prove no set of facts based on the allegations in the complaint that would entitle him to relief Summary Judgement Rule 56 • Moving party has burden at trial: Typically after Must show affirmative evidence discovery since if not suff. Evidence Required • Solely on the pleadings • Judge will ascertain whether viewing the pleadings in light most favorable to P whether states a legally sufficient claim • P given at least one opp. must point can continue discovery to specific places in evidentiary record (56(f)) • Burden of persuasion taken into acct. jury to find for the non-moving party. No genuine issue of material fact an that moving party entitled to judgment based on undisputed facts. evidence. “ but one reasonable conclusion: 2 stds: 1) Consider only evidence favorable to NMP and all infer. Poss.
Rule 61 Interlocutory Appeals: Collateral Order Doctrine: 1) Conclusive 2) Resolve important issue question sep.less likely to cause 7th A probs as JNOV • Grounds for new trial .exclusive of others Other means of relief: Bring sep.59(a)(1): Any reason granted in past include. newly discovered evid Move for New Trial Grant • If grant JNOV. surprise.Post -Verdict Options 1) Renew JMOL . equity suit if facts = “grave miscarriage of justice” or await execution . Allen) 6) Any other reason justifying relief ..50(b) • Must have motioned before submitted to jury Renew JMOL Grant JMOL granted and New trial conditionally granted Can appeal Appellate court can 1) Uphold JMOL or 2) New Trial .. Final judgment 4) Relief from Judgment 60(b) Rule 60(b): Can make motion in action in which judgement was rendered: 1) Mistake. Ct has discretion in granting new trial .Std. prejudicial error. excusable neglect 2) New evidence 3) Fraud 4) Judgement void 5) Judgement satisfied or judgement on which based overturned (Reed v. juror misconduct. review abuse of discretion will stand Deny Both JMOL denied and New Trial GrantedNo appeal until 2nd trial is over Diff result in Trail 2: Loser can claim new trial was abuse of discretion Same result: Loser can appeal both new trial and JMOL 2) Move for New Trial . from merits 3) Render effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judge OR Partial SJ and express det. must also conditionally rule on new trial JMOL granted and New trial conditionally deniedCan appeal Both JMOL and New Trial Motion deniedAbility to appeal Appellate court can 1) Order JMOL 2) New Trial 3) Let Verdict stand Deny Appellate court can 1) Uphold JMOL or 2) Reinstate verdict or 3) Order new trial (Abuse discretion) 3) Appeal Need Final Judgement + Substantial Stake+ Trial court Error (Procedural. or gross misapprehension of facts) .judicial error. verdict against great weight of evidence.59 • Tl.note harmless error . misapply substantive law.
not in the alternative .note collateral estoppel .must be part of decision 4) Necessary to the judgement .Rule 20 .but note collateral estoppel if try to bring in suit 2 • Permissive joinder .Rule 14 .must be necessary to the case Barred in suit 2 Not Barred in Suit 2 • Claims under 18(a) not out of same transaction or which could not have been brought in first suit (b/c of exclusive jx or nosupp jx) • Permissive Counterclaims under 13(b) • Cross-claims under 13(g) • Impleader .not alternative theories • Issues that were decided on .Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion New claims on same set of events Basic Requirements 1) Same parties or privies 2) Same transaction or occurences 3) Final and Valid decision 4) On the merits • Claims under 18(a) arising out of same transaction able to bring in suit 1 • Compulsory Counter claims under 13(a) Collateral Estoppel/ Issue Preclusion Same issues on new set of events 1) Same parties or privies 2) Same issue of fact/law actually litigated 3) Actually decided .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.