Civ Pro

28 U.S.C. § 1331

Federal Question Jurisdiction

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)

Diversity Jurisdiction

Gordon v. Steel

Domicle test

Mas. v. Perry

Complete Diversity

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)

Dual Citizenship of Corporations

Article III, Section 2, clause 1

Citizens of different states ONLY (and foreign citizens)

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2):

Fed courts no auto jurisdiction for foreign citizens who are domiciled in us

Hertz Corp. V. Friend

Nerve center test for corps

Diefenthal v. C.A.B

Courts will not hear cases where it is a legal certainty the amount in controversy will not be met

Well Pleaded Complaint Rule

Federal question SMJ exists if (and only if) a well-pleaded complaint necessarily would invoke federal law as a basis for the plaintiff’s claim

Homles Creation Test

a legal suit arises under the law that creates the cause of actionA legal

Grable Test

1. Necessarily Raised

2. Actually Disputed

3. Substantial

4. Non-disruptive to state and federal balance

Statute: 28 U.S. Code § 1441

Rules of Removal

28 USC 1367(a)

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Erie Doctrine

In diversity cases courts must apply the state substantive law of the state where the federal court sits

Gibbs Test

Article III allows federal courts to hear supplemental state-law claims if the federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

USC 1446(b)

After 30 days (from when the case becomes removable,) a case is no longer removable to federal court

USC 1447( c)

A motion to remand the case back to state court can be filed anytime before final judgement if the court lacks SMJ

USC 1448

If a defendant has been improperly served notice, new service may be completed so the case is not dismissed.

Forum Defendant Rule

Defendants cannot remove a case to federal court if they are sued in the state they reside in

Complete Diversity

No plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant

Twin aims of Erie

(1) eliminate forum shopping, (2) equtiable admistration of the law

Common nucleas of operative fact

If claims arise from the same event, supplemental jurisdiction can apply

USC 1367

Supplemental jurisdiction

Outcome determinative test

If choosing a different rule in federal court would significantly change the result of the litigation, the federal court must apply the state rule

Surpremacy clause

Federal laws outrank state laws

Byrd test

Balancing Test: When deciding whether to apply state or federal procedural rules in

diversity cases, federal courts must balance state-created substantive interests against

countervailing federal judicial interests

28 USC 1367(C)

The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a

claim under subsection (a) if—

• (1)the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

• (2)the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the

district court has original jurisdiction,

• (3)the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,

or

• (4)in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining

jurisdiction