Civil Procedure Outline Condensed PDF

Preview

Summary

Civil procedure outline jurisdiction to judgment...

Description

Civil Procedure Outline Subject Matter Jurisdiction  RS: The Constitution provides that Federal Courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of causes of action that pertain to federal law or that are between diverse parties. o Rationale: tells us whether the case is one properly filed in state court. Federal court, or either.  Diversity of Citizenship o 28 U.S.C. §1332  (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive interests and costs, and is between—  (1) Citizens of different sates; o “Complete Diversity” o RS: Diversity exists whenever no plaintiff and defendant are domiciled in the same state  A person is domiciled whenever they reside in that with the intent to remain indefinitely o Rationale: To prevent discrimination in state court against nondomiciled persons  (2) Citizens of a state or subjects of a foreign state; o “Alienage Jurisdiction” o RS: Diversity exists whenever a non-resident citizen sues (is sued by) a resident citizen.  Rationale: To prevent discrimination in state court against foreign citizens. o Exceptions: Federal court do NOT have original jurisdiction where a case is between citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residents and are domiciled in that same state.  Rationale: A person who is a permanent legal resident domiciled in a U.S. state may not need the same protection against local prejudice in state court as other foreign citizens.  (3) Citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; o “Aliens as Additional Parties” o RS: Diversity exists whenever there is a suit between two resident citizens and non-resident citizens are added as additional parties  (4) A foreign state, defined in §1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a state or different state.  Determining Citizenship o (A) A person is domiciled when:  (1) they reside in a different state, and  (2) with the intent to remain in that state indefinitely (or, with the intent to make the new state a true, fixed, and permanent home).

Evidence of this element: o The person’s stated intent.  Objectica Indica of Intent to Remain/Return (Some factors considered): o From time of birth:  Spouse/family  Assets  Job  Voter Registration  Time Spent o OR  Property interests in a state.  Contractual commitments in the state.  Indefinite Intent: even if one does not plan to stay forever, if one has no definite plan to leave, one likely has an indefinite intent to remain where he resides.  U.S. Citizens Domiciled Abroad  RS: A U.S. citizen who has domiciled outside of the US cannot have jurisdiction under diversity jurisdiction. o Rationale: Because they are neither state citizens nor foreign citizens, American expatriates simply slip through a crack in the diversity statute. o (B) Citizenships of Corporations  28 U.S.C. §1332(c)  (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every state and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business. o PPB: The place in which a predominant amount of a business’ activities occurs. o Dual Citizenship: It is a citizen of both its state or nation of incorporation and of the state or nation where its principal place of business is located.  Exception: except in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance. o (a) every state and foreign state of which the insurer is a citizen; o (b) every state and foreign state by which the insurer has been incorporated; and o (c) the state or foreign state where the insurer has is principal place of business. 



Citizenship of Unincorporated Associations o RS: Unincorporated association’s takes on the citizenship of ALL of its member o MUST EXIST AS OF TIME THE SUIT IS INSTITUTED.



o Dismissal to Perfect Diversity Jurisdiction  RS: A court may dismiss a non-diverse defendant before rendering a final judgment in order to perfect its jurisdiction. Amount in Controversy o 28 U.S.C. §1332(b)  (b) where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and cost. o Aggregating Multiple Claims  RS: A single plaintiff may aggregate the amounts in controversy in separate claims against the same defendant to meet the jurisdictional amount, even if they are factually unrelated. o Independently Meeting the Amount in Controversy Requirements.  RS: Co-Plaintiffs may NOT aggregate their claims to meet the jurisdictional amount unless they’re suing on a common undivided interest in property, rather than separate interest.  EXCEPTION: If one or more plaintiffs’ claims meets the requirement, the fact that the other plaintiffs do not independently meet the amount in controversy requirement will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. o Multiple Plaintiffs Suing to Recover a Common Undivided Interest  Generally, each plaintiff must independently meet the amount in controversy requirement.  When the plaintiffs hold an undivided interest, we do not divide the amount in controversy by the number of plaintiffs. o Joint and Several Liability  RS: In a state with tort law: when a plaintiff claims damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount against multiple defendants who may be held jointly and severally liable, they have satisfied the amount in controversy. o Counterclaims and Amount in Controversy  RS: Even if a counterclaim exceeds the jurisdictional amount, if the plaintiff’s claim does not there is NO subject matter jurisdiction o Injunctive Relief and the Amount in Controversy.  RS: The amount in controversy is probably met with injunctive relief whenever either the cost to the defendant to comply with the injunction or the cost to the plaintiff if the injunction issued meets the jurisdictional amount.  Domestic Relation Exception: suits seeking divorce, child custody, or child support payments  Probate Exception: applies to the administration of the estate. (i.e. will interpretation, and will validation)  Abstention Doctrine: circumstances where federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction but will decline to execute subject matter jurisdiction.



o Gives the states a chance to try such suits. o 28 U.S.C. §1359  Cannot bring a party in to create a diversity of citizenship. Federal Question Jurisdiction o Constitutional Scope:  RS: The Constitution allows federal courts to hear all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority. o Statutory Scope:  28 U.S.C. §1331  The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, or treaties of the United States. o (1) A federally created cause of action alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint always arises under federal law. o (2) A state-created cause of actions with an embedded federal issue sometimes arises under federal law. o (3) A state-created cause of actions without an imbedded federal issue never arises under federal law. o The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule  RS: A suit arises under federal law whenever the plaintiff’s statement of their own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws of that Constitution.  (1) The Holmes Creation Test  RS: A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.  (2) The No-Counterclaim Rule  RS: A federal district court may not exercise federal question jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cased based on a counterclaim asserted in the action  (3) Federal Question Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgement Action.  Declaratory Judgment: Federal Courts my declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether to not further relief is or could be sought. o RS: If the cause of action which the declaratory defendant threatens to assert, does not itself involve a claim under federal law, it is doubtful if a federal court may entertain an action for a declaratory judgment establishing that claim.  (4) Plaintiff as master of their own complaint.  RS: A plaintiff is not required to assert a federal cause of action because one is available to them, unless, federal law is the only cause of action  (5) The Complete Preemption Rule: When the Plaintiff is Not the Master  The plaintiff is not the master if his complaint only in one situation: o When a federal claim completely preempts state law claims.

Complete preemption occurs when federal law not only provides a cause of action but also preempts state law causes of action of the same sort. o The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule and the Smith Exception  The Smith exception is an exception to the Creation Test, not the wellpleaded complaint rule.  The federal issue embedded in the state law claim must still appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint and in the plaintiff’s statement of his cause of action. o Sufficient, Central, Essential Federal Question  (1) State law creates “cause of action” (Nope!)  (2) Federal law creates cause of action  (3) Hybrids: state created causes of action incorporating fed law (and vice versa) o Federal Question Additional Statutory Requirement  RS: state created cause of action is sufficient if the federal issue:  (1) Necessarily raised,  (2) Actually disrupted,  (3) Substantial,  (4) Not disrupt federal/state balance approved by Congress, and  (5) Serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum o Erie Doctrine  “Vertical” Choice of Law Standard  Requires a court to choose between a state rule and a federal rule. o (1) state substantive law applies to cause of action created solely under state law but brought in federal court. (e.g., under diversity jurisdiction or supplemental sub, jurisdiction.) o (2) but federal courts apply valid federal “Procedural” law in such suits.  “Horizontal” Choice of Law Standard  Forces the court to select one rule from among those of two or more states.  “Rules of Decision Act”  28 U.S.C. §1652 o The laws of several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the U.S. or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. Removal o RS: The process in which a defendant overrides the plaintiff’s choice of a state forum by substituting a federal forum for adjudication of the action. o Procedure:  28 U.S.C. §1441  (a) generally, any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be 





removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.  (b)(2) a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under §1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought.  (c) Joinder of Federal Law Claims and State Law Claims. 28 U.S.C. §1446  (1) Who may remove? o Only defendants may remove a case under §1441, ONLY for claims made against them. o When there is more than one defendant, the unanimity of consent rule requires that all defendants properly served must consent to removal.  If any such defendant objects to removal or fails to consent in writing the case may not be removed, or if already removed, must be remanded.  (2) When the Case Must Be Removed: The Deadline o §1446(b) requires the defendant to make the removal decision within 30 days of formal notice of suit from state court. o Later-served defendant may remove cases even after the 30-day deadline has expired for earlier-served defendants.  (3) To What Federal Court Is a Case Removed? o Cases may be removed only to the federal court for the district and division where the state court in which the suit was filed is located.  This requirement is sometimes referred to as removal venue.  (4) How Defendants Remove a Case o Defendants file a notice of removal in the federal court for the district and division where the state court action is pending.  The notice must contain a “short and plain” statement of the grounds for removal. o A defendant who removes a case must provide notice of the removal “promptly after filing the notice” to all adverse parties.  The Federal District Court Determines the Propriety of Removal and Remand o The states court plays no role in the decision to remove or remand the case.  Exceptions to the General Rule of Removal o The Forum State (a/z/a In-State) Defendant Exception  RS: A case may NOT be removed from state to federal court on diversity ground IF any defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

Rationale: a defendant who shares citizenship with the forum state does not have the potential of local prejudice against the defendant. o Removal and Fraudulent Joinder  RS: A defendant is fraudulently joined only if the plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under the governing substantive law against the defendant.  Think “properly joined and served.” o Cases Made Non-Removable by Statute  28 U.S.C. §1445  Makes non-removable certain over cases which federal district courts have original jurisdiction.  [Ex.]: Common carrier for delay, loss, or injury to shipments under the Interstate Commerce Act where the AIC exceeds $10k.  28 U.S.C. §1454  Makes a claim by any party removable if it relates to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. A Non-Removable Case May Become Removable o Even if the case stated by the initial state court pleading is not removable, the case might become removable later.  [Ex.]: a plaintiff could make a case removable by alleging a federal question, voluntarily dismissing a nondiverse or forum state defendant, or increasing his damage to exceed the AIC in diversity cases. One-Year Limit on Removal of Diversity Cases o 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(1)  Generally, a case may not be removed on diversity grounds more than one year after the state court action was commenced. Removal of 1 Count of Multiple o General Rule: Normally no, all counts within a claim must satisfy federal question jurisdiction in order for removal.  §1441(c)(1) Exception  If a claim arises under and is a claim not within the original jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction, the federal court severs it, and remands the state claim back to state court. o Only defendants who are a party to the federal question claim have to consent, it is an exception to the unanimity of consent rule. 







o Remand Cases to State Court  The district court may remand the case sua sponte (without a motion to remand from the plaintiff).  Usually only done when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.  Typically, plaintiff files a motion to remand in the federal district court.  Motion to remand must provide grounds for remand.  An untimely motion may result in waiver.  Grounds for remand fall into 1 of 2 categories:  (1) a defect in removal procedure, or  (2) a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Waiver of Procedural Defects  28 U.S.C. §1447(c) o A motion to remand generally must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal. o In contrast, a motion for remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time before final judgment. Personal Jurisdiction  RS: A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if (1) the defendant is served with process within the state; (2) the defendant voluntarily appears; (3) the defendant is a domicile of the state  In Rem Definitions: o True/Pure In Rem: this binds the entire world as to the future disposition of that property, but not the individual parties to the suit.  [Ex.]: Eminent domain case where the state takes private land for public use. This action is binding on the owner of the land, but also on anyone else who might have an interest in the land. o Quasi In Rem (Type 1): the cause of action and the property are related.  [Ex.]: where a mortgage lender attaches the property of a debtor to his claim in order to satisfy the mortgage debt. o Quasi In Rem (Type 2): the plaintiff attaches the defendant’s property to his claim, but the claim and the property are not related.  [Ex.]: Quasi in rem actions must satisfy the minimum contacts test from International Shoe and that ownership of property in the forum state by itself is not sufficient to satisfy minimum contacts. The California court would not be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant because his only contact with California is the property that he owns there.  Quasi in rem actions must satisfy the minimum contacts test from International Shoe and that ownership of property in the forum state by itself is not sufficient to satisfy minimum contacts.  In Personam Definitions: o General Personal Jurisdiction: Refers to a court’s power to hear cases over an outof-state party who has extensive, systematic, and continuous dealings with the state in which the court sits.  Consider only the relationship between the defendants and the forum state.  This relationship must be stronger than simply contacts between the defendant and the forum state.

 



o Specific Personal Jurisdiction: Personal Jurisdiction that is established when the cause of action arises out of or is connected with the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.  Requires a relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. (a) Contacts? If no: stop (b) if yes o (i) defendant affiliation with forum state sufficient for general jurisdiction.  If yes, stop, DPC satisfied o (ii) if no  Plaintiff claim arises out of/relates to defendant’s contacts, if no, stop  But-For: but-for the defendant’s acts that constitute contacts, no claim.  Substantial Relevance: the circumstance constituting defendant’s contacts substantially relevant to proving plaintiff’s claims.  If yes, FPSJ Statutory Requirements o (1) State Long-Arm Statutes: A state statute extending jurisdiction over nonresidents who have had contacts with such state.  (Type 1): If the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not violate due process then it is also permitted under the statute  (Type 2): A categorical long arm statute. o (2) FRCP Rule 4(k): Territorial Limits of Effective Service  Interpreted to mean a federal court will have personal jurisdiction over a defendant if a state court will have personal jurisdiction over a defendant.  Allows federal courts to follow state law to determine the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons. o Constitutional Requirements  (1) Minimum Contacts  “Minimum Contacts” Standard for Exercising Personal Jurisdiction: o A nonresident defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.  Minimum Contacts policy: (1) To protect the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum; (2) to ensure that the states through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.  Type of Contact Needed for Defendant to be Hauled into Court of Forum State: o Reasonable to anticipate.  If the Defendant Has No Contacts with The State: o The court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877) o Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless she voluntarily appears in the court, is found within the state, resides in the state, or has property in the state that the court has attached.





