Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Question:
1331 Diversity: 1332 Supplemental- 1367 Removal - 1441

Federal creates cause ofSource: Art III, but Sec. 1332 narrower b/c • 1441: Any matter fed. Cts
Constitutional Basis have orig. jx can be
action: express or include amt. in controversy req. and
removed
• Article III of the Constitution - must be
Impliedif unsure can bring & complete diversity requirement Only D, only to Fed
same case or controversy
dismissal on merits Complete Diversity Fed decides
• Look to Gibb test: Common nucleus
• Real persons: Citizenship = Domicile (last place of Operative Fact (CNOF)- same NO appeal of remand
OR intended to stay indefinitely/”mind/behind”) (Mas v. case or controversy •Complete Unanimity
among D’s required
Federal law is central
Perry) + •“well-pleaded complnt”
• Artificial Persons: applies (Caterpillar)
but claim not arise • Corporations : Citizenship = State of Incorporation Statutory Basis •Remove only to fed ct.
from it + Principle place of business • Federal Question: 1367(a) Orig. embracing state ct. where
• Place of Operations claim has Fed. JX and supp. claims action pending
• Nerve Center
NOT • Total Activity/Primary Activity Test
are part of same case/controversy
(Gibbs)
•(b): If removal based on
diversity - can NOT remove
Federal defense or • Associations: citizens of ALL states where • Basically full reach of constitutional if any D is citizen of forum
members are citizens authority state
anticipated federal •Removal OK even If st. ct.
• Improper/collusive assignment or joinder NOT • Diversity Cases: 1367(b) supp. Jx
defense (Mottley): permitted to defeat or create diversity NOT extend to: did not have jx remove to
Well pleaded • If non-diverse D’s joined after removal, may be • Claims by P’s vs. parties joined fed ct and dismiss (12 b 2)
complaint rule remanded or joinder denied 1441 (c) under 14, 19, 20, 24 •1446: Procedure
• 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
• Min. amt. In controversy = $75K- met unless “legal • Otherwise inconsistent w/1332 complaint
preemption (Caterpillar)
certainty” will not recover • Court Discretion 1367(c): may •Multiple D’s - cts. split if get
• Value of injunctions- to either P or D (Glenwood) decide NOT to exercise Jx if add’l 30 days; later D can
Note: Rule 8(a)(1): Complaint
• Aggregation: Single P can aggregate against single Novel issue of state law; remand if w/in 30 days
must have short statement of
D. But can’t aggregate claims of different P’s (Zahn). supp. claim >original claim •Must still file w/n a year if
grounds for subject matter JX
Counterclaims generally NOT offset; also issue w/ dismiss all claims w/ orig. jx; removal based on diversity
1367 (b) and Zahn. exceptional circumstances
Removal means
venue rules DON’T 1447 Post-Removal
Watch out for: patent infringement v. breach of K related to patent apply. Can only (c) Motion to remand w/in 30 days after file notice
Must have direct reliance on federal law for substantive right remove to area where (d) Remands NOT appealable
“Artful Pleading” to stay in ST crt when really can be removed b/c fed action is pending. (e) post-removal joinder which can destroy subj.mat jx.
issue Court’s discretion remand (allow) or continue (NOT)
 Personal Jurisdiction
Federal Rule 4(K)(1) Rule 4(K)(2) Minimum
• (A) Subject to JX in state where Dist. • Claim under federal law Contacts with
Court Ct. located • No state has general Jx (good
• (B) Joined under Rule 14 or 19 and
w/n 100 mls of ct. (bulge Jx)
or for foreign D’s
• Exercise of Jx
+ the US as a
whole- 5th
• (C) Joined under interpleader constitutionally/statutorily Ammend
• (D)Auth. By fed. statute sound

Basis Long Arm Statute

• Long Arm statute • Full extent of Constitution: CA
• Persons: Consent, in -state service, • Particular Circumstances: NY
presence, domicile • Specify exactly when can take JX
• Corporations: Incorporation, nerve • Particulars but construed broadly:
State center, consent - in state agent at full extent of constitution
Court • Civil Status cases

Constitutional Analysis
Minimum Contacts Reasonableness
• General: Persons- domic, pres; Corp--Incorp, doing
•
State interest in hearing the case
biz - “continuous and systematic” (Shoe)
•
Burden on Defendant
• Specific: 1) Claim arise/relate to contacts 2)
•
Plaintiff interest in relief
NOTICE & Purposeful availment (McGee/Kulko/Keeton NOT
•
Judicial system intrst in efficient resolutn
Hanson)
SERVICE Rule •
Shared interest of several states in
• Directed at forum (Calder,, driving)
4 • Stream of commerce: Gray (prob. Asahi—ads required, forwarding public policy
Mullane letters; O’Connors) • Balancing test (Burger King)
Mennonite address: • Applies to in rem Shaffer
Lehr “father”; posters
on door

Objections: Either direct attack (special appearance) or collateral attack (allow default, challenge
domestication) - Note Rule 12 - must object at first opportunity or waive
 VENUE and forum non conveniens

Venue- • Diversity: 1391(a) - Venue proper if

1391/ • 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” eventsclaim took place or “local rule” property subject of action
1404/1406 located
• 3) District where any D subject to under personal jx - 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, if no other district where action can be brought - (served w/ process,
but also poss to use personal jx)
• Corporate Defendants (not Ps) 1391 (c) : Defines corporate residence as particular District where D has
contracts - even if subject to personal jx in state - may not be proper venue -
• Resides in every district where the corp. is subject to personal jx - even if only specific jx for this claim- treat
district like a separate state for min. contacts analysis
• Aliens 1391(d): Any district
• 1406 - If venue wrong or at discretion of the court - can dismiss or transfer to 1404-any other district where
could have been brought originally

Forum Non •·Discretionary power to Ct. to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice
Conveniens would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum. (Piper)

In Fed. Ct. under Diversity JX - Where fed. Law is not controlling, fed. Ct’s must apply state law
Arguably Procedural (Sibbach v. Wilson—not substantive just
b/c has to do w/ right; if procedural, really procedural)
Yes
Procedures in conflict?
Yes
Federal rule, valid and on point
No
Outcome Determinative: (Hanna twin aims of
Erie - 1) Forum shopping 2) inequitable admin of laws//
modifies Guaranty Trust v. York—laches v. stat of
limprocedural BUT outcome determinative)
Yes
Overriding Federal Interest (7th A rt to jury; div
btw judge/jury, due process, div btw TC & AP, liberal
pleading, res judicata?
Yes
Able to accommodate both
Yes
Make accommodation: Gasperini-2 separate
Erie analyses: New Trstate b/c no rule on point;
AppealFed interest in review and separate
Trial/Appeal
ERIE
No Clearly SubstantiveApply State law (Erie—willful
v. negl.stdrd; Klaxton—choice of law <if PA choice of
law sends to NY law, use NY NOT PA>)
No
Apply Both - (Cohen v. Beneficial Life—stockholderspost
security <state>; <fed> silent on issue)
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. Walker Steel—
Rule 3 NOT on point b/c not intended to relate to stat of lim.
[construe narrowly] <Ragan-stare decisis.)
No
Apply Federal Law
No
Apply State Law
Apply Federal Law - Byrd Balancing Test
No ByrdJdge/Jry decides if person was EEJURY 7th Am rt.
Reverse Erie: Must have overriding fed. 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
 Joinder of Claims
Possible Claims to be joined Jx question

P D • Original Claim
• May add additional unrelated claims - Rule 18

D P • Must assert compulsory counterclaims - Rule 13(a)

that arise out of same transaction or occurrence
• May assert unrelated, permissive counterclaims -
Rule 13(b)
D1  D2 • May assert cross-claim - Rule 13(g) - must be same
case/controversy
• Once assert valid crossclaim, may then add unrelated
claims - Rule 18
D2  D1 • May assert cross-claim - Rule 13(g) - must be same
case/controversy
• Must assert compulsory counterclaim 13(a) against D1’s
crossclaim
• Once valid crossclaim/counterclaim, may add unrelated
claims - Rule 18 or assert permissive counterclaims 13(b)
against D1
 Joinder of parties/Intervention
Permissive Joinder -
Rule 20 Intervener - Rule 24 Compulsory Joinder - Rule 19

As of right - 24(a) Should they be joined?

• 19(a)(1) - If no complete relief in persons’ absence
Single Transaction
(1) Statute gives right • 19(a)(2) - If judgment in absence of party
+ • (i) As practical matter impair protection of parties’
interest
(2) 3 -prong test
Common question of • (ii) impose multiple or inconsitent obligations
Mechanics

• Interest in subj matter based on

law/fact property or transaction
• Ability to protect interest would be
impaired Can they be joined?
• Inadequate representation • Terr. JX - Must be subj. to service of process - can be
Not need claims against
waived - Bulge Jx- 4(K)(1)(B) - must be w/n 100 miles
all parties- decide each
• Subj. Matter Jx: Joinder can not deprive of jx - note
according to respective Permissive - 24(b) for purposes of diversity - no supp. Jx if join as P’s but
rights yes if join as D’s
Common question of law/fact
• Venue: No join if make venue improper
+ • Refusal: Can still be made involuntary P or
Join other P’s or Discretion of court
make co-D’s If they can’t be, but should be?
• Prejudice: Extent prejudice absent party
Terr JX: Must have Jx over each D Subj. Matter: Indep. Grounds req. • Framing judgment: poss. frame judge. To mitigate
Jurisdiction

- may be out of range even if jx Fed. Q - permitted prejudice

could be constitutional 4(k)(1)(B) - Diversity - 1367(b) - Can not • Adequacy of remedy: Can adequate remedy w/
must be w/n 100 miles ?? intervene as a Plaintiff and have absense
Subj. Matter: subj. matter jx. If break diversity • Result of dismissal: Will adequate remedy if P
Fed. Q - always permitted; dismissed
Diversity - No supp. Jx over state-
law claims v. non-divers Ds - 1367;
circuit split over P’s
 Rule 14 and 13(h) Joinder of Parties
Rule/Mechanics - Power JX - Permission
• Must be related to P’s orig. complaint or previous counterclaim - same • ALWAYS exists under 13(g) -
D v. D: Cross - transaction/relate to property test from 13(a) Comp. Counterclaim b/c same transaction req.
claim 13(g) • Never mandatory meets CNOF test and not
excluded by 1367(b)
• Must claim actual relief

D v. P + Other • On counterclaim/cross-claim - D can join additional parties to the counter

or crossclaim as long as joinder meets reqs. In Rule 20(a) - Same
party 13(h) transaction + Common question law/fact.

D v. 3PD - • When: Anytime after commencement - if after 10 days of answer, need • Original claim: Impleading
leave of court (liberal) 3PD by D, NOT affect jx over
14(a) orig. claim even if not diverse
• Derivative action: must be asserting 3rd party’s liability depends on D’s
D liability to orig. P. • Impleader claim - must still
• Same Case/Controversy have supp. Jx
1 2 • Additional Claims: Once properly impleaded 3PD can assert other • Usually will under 1367(b) -
Related unRelated unrelated claims - 18(a) since excludes parties joined
by P’s under 14
• Denial: Can deny 1) Undue delay 2) Complication issues 3) Prejudice to
P - can separate suits • Venue: 3PD not taken into
3PD consideration
• NOT mandatory
3PD v. D/P/new 3PD • 14(a) allows 3PD to assert:
Claims / P •Counterclaim against 3PP/Def. - not need to be related
Counter-
claim
•Cross-claims against any other 3PD- must be related
D •Claims against orig. P that arise out of same transaction as orig. P/D suit
3PD Counter

Cross claim
claim •Defenses against orig. P and 3PP/Def
3PD
•Original P can assert claims against 3PD • 1367(b) If claims by P’s
P v. 3PD against parties joined under 14
•Must be related to orig. claim b/t P and orig. D
- not have supp. Juris. If orig.
•Independent juridisdictional requirement - prevent collusion b/t D and P to jx is based on diversity
maintain diversity
 Summary Judgement - Rule 56

Moving Party has Moving Party not have

Burden at trial - P Burden at trial - D
Standard: No genuine issue of material
• Must present Affirmative • Must point to specific fact an that moving party entitled to
Burden of Evidence places lacking in the record
showing no GIMF - judgment based on undisputed facts.
Production • Can not rely on the Celotrex
pleadings
• Not require affirmative
evidence Partial SJ: Rule 56(d): SJ can be
granted w/ respect to certain claims -
• Who bears the risk of non-persuasion?
Burden of • All reasonable inferences viewed in light most
Persuasion favorable to non-moving party
Quasi-Interlocutory Appeal: Rule
54(b) but appeal can be had only if
• Take account of burden at trial - Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby express determination by judge that final
judgment

• Can not rest on the pleadings if opposing motion for

SJ - Rule 56(e)
Opposing
Motion for SJ • Must present affirmative evidence in substance but
not form admissible at trial
• If affidavits not available - court can issue
continuance for more discovery - 56(f)
 Judgment as Matter of Law
Rule When Evidence Required Trial Std Ap Std
• Solely on the pleadings Plaintiff can prove no set
Pre-answer motion
Failure to 12(b)(6) - not need to make
• Judge will ascertain whether viewing of facts based on the
the pleadings in light most favorable allegations in the
State a claim: at first opp. to P whether states a legally complaint that would
sufficient claim entitle him to relief
• P given at least one opp. To ammend

Typically after • Moving party has burden at trial: No genuine issue of

discovery since if not Must show affirmative evidence material fact an that
Summary Rule 56 suff. evidence, parties • MP NOT have burden at trial - no moving party entitled to
can continue discovery affirmative evidence, BUT, must point judgment based on
Judgement (56(f)) to specific places in evidentiary record undisputed facts.
• Burden of persuasion taken into acct.

After non-moving No legally sufficient basis

JMOL/ Rule parties’ case in chief • Based on evidence presented at for a reas. jury to find for
trial the non-moving party. “
Directed 50(a)
or at any time before
but one reasonable
sub. to the jury. Poss. • Must specify places in evidentiary
Verdict allow motion after issue record- allow ammendment conclusion: 2 stds: De Novo:
• Viewed in light most favorable to 1) Consider only evidence Verdict insuff.
presented favorable to NMP and all As matter of
non-moving party
After jury verdict: w/n 10 infer. in light most favorable Law
to NMP. OR
days of entry of judgment
JMOL/ Rule - BUT make JMAL motion
2) Include evidence by MP
that is not impeached
JNOV 50(b) before submission to jury /contradicted by opposing
party evidence

After jury verdict: w/n 10• Based on evidence presented at trial

New Trial Rule 59 days of entry of judgment • Includes procedural factors
Great weight of the Abuse of
evidence. Discretion
• Viewed in light most favorable to non-
(Gasperini)
moving party
 Post -Verdict Options
Renew JMOL
1) Renew JMOL - 50(b)
Grant Deny
• Must have motioned before submitted to
jury JMOL granted and New trial Both JMOL denied and New
conditionally granted Can Trial GrantedNo appeal until
• If grant JNOV, must also conditionally rule appeal 2nd trial is over

Grant
Move for New Trial
on new trial
Appellate court can 1) Uphold Diff result in Trail 2: Loser can claim
new trial was abuse of discretion
JMOL or 2) New Trial - Std. review
2) Move for New Trial - 59 abuse of discretion will stand Same result: Loser can appeal both
new trial and JMOL
• Tl. Ct has discretion in granting new trial
- less likely to cause 7th A probs as JMOL granted and New trial
JNOV Both JMOL and New Trial
conditionally deniedCan appeal Motion deniedAbility to appeal
• Grounds for new trial - 59(a)(1): Any

Deny
Appellate court can 1) Uphold
reason granted in past include...judicial Appellate court can 1) Order
JMOL or 2) Reinstate verdict or 3)
error, prejudicial error, juror misconduct, verdict JMOL 2) New Trial 3) Let Verdict
Order new trial (Abuse discretion)
against great weight of evidence; newly stand
discovered evid

3) Appeal Need Final Judgement + Substantial Stake+ Trial court Error (Procedural, misapply substantive law, or gross
misapprehension of facts) - note harmless error - Rule 61

Interlocutory Appeals: Collateral Order Doctrine: 1) Conclusive 2) Resolve important issue question sep. from
merits 3) Render effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judge OR Partial SJ and express det. Final
judgment

4) Relief from Rule 60(b): Can make motion in action in which judgement was rendered: 1) Mistake, surprise, excusable neglect
2) New evidence 3) Fraud 4) Judgement void 5) Judgement satisfied or judgement on which based overturned
Judgment - (Reed v. Allen) 6) Any other reason justifying relief - exclusive of others
60(b) Other means of relief: Bring sep. equity suit if facts = “grave miscarriage of justice” or await execution
 Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
Collateral Estoppel/ Issue
Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion Preclusion

New claims on same set of events Same issues on new set of events
Basic Requirements
1) Same parties or privies 1) Same parties or privies
2) Same transaction or occurences 2) Same issue of fact/law actually litigated
3) Actually decided - must be part of decision
3) Final and Valid decision
4) Necessary to the judgement - not alternative
4) On the merits theories

• Claims under 18(a) arising out of same • Issues that were decided on - not in the
Barred in suit 2 transaction able to bring in suit 1 alternative - must be necessary to the case
• Compulsory Counter claims under 13(a)

• Claims under 18(a) not out of same transaction

or which could not have been brought in first suit
Not Barred in Suit (b/c of exclusive jx or nosupp jx)
2 • Permissive Counterclaims under 13(b)
• Cross-claims under 13(g)
• Impleader - Rule 14 - but note collateral estoppel
if try to bring in suit 2
• Permissive joinder - Rule 20 - note collateral
estoppel