CIV PRO OUTLINE 1.0

28 USC 1332

Diversity jurisdiction, requires complete diversity

28 USC 1332(a)

Individual Domicile test —> physical presence + intent to remain indefinitely

Gordon v Steele 1974

domicile is based on last place of residence with intent to remain indefinitely

Mass v Perry 1974

you have your old domicile until a new domicile is acquired (true, fixed, permanent)

28 USC 1332(c)

State Citizenship of Corporations —> incorporated and principal place of business

Hertz Corp v Friend 2010

Nerve Center test —> principal place of business is where a corporation’s officers direct, control and coordinate the company’s activities

Carden v Arkoma Associates 1990

Carden Rule —> you must examine the individual citizenships of partners in a partnership (LLP)

where are partnerships domiciled?

wherever its partners are domiciled the day the suit is filed

Minimum amount in controversity requirement

$75,000

Refined Metals v NL Indus 2019

interests and costs don’t count when determining minimum AIC —> only the claim on its face value does

St Paul Test

plaintiff’s claim for AIC will be accepted if…

1. made in good faith

2. no legal certainty that claim is worth less than jurisdictional amount

Diefenthal v CAB 1982

need to show legal and factual basis for the damages alleged in the complaint

Can an injunction count towards AIC?

Yes

Rules for aggregating claims

same plaintiff + same defendant —> can be aggregated

When can claims not be aggregated?

1. counterclaims

2. different plaintiffs

3. different defendants

28 USC 1331

FQJ —> federal court has jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law, constitution, treaties

Osborn v Bank of US

Article III of the Constitution only requires some kind of federal ingredient

Louisville & Nashville RR v Mottley 1908

Well-pleaded complaint rule

potential defeneses do not count

Holmes test —> is the federal law the source of the cause of action?

well-pleaded complaint rule

does the complaint actually state on its face an issue of federal law/does it arise from it?

Franchise Tax Board of California v Construction Laborers Vacation Trust

federal court has FQJ if either

1. federal law creates claim

2. you can’t decide case without answering an important federal law question

smith v kansas city title & trust co

a case that asserts a state law claim may satisfy FQJ under 1331 if it meets the holmes test; turns on important federal issue

Smith exception

Grable & Sons Metal Products Inc v Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

Grable test: a state law claim may arise under federal law only if the federal issue is

a. necessarily raised from a federal issue

b. actually disputed

c. substantial to federal system as a whole

d. won’t disrupt federal-state balance approved by congress

Gunn v minton 2013

issue must be substantial to the federal system as a whole; didn’t find an issue substantial enough in this case

shoeshone mining co v rutter

a federal statute authorized the suit but said it should be decided under state law, aka local mining customs and statutes

bell v hood

claim did arise under federal law, but right of action did not exist under federal law —> court had to use FQJ to decide if they could hear the case

which cases are exceptions to the holmes test?

shoeshone mining co v rutter

bell v hood

Can a defendant remove to state court if plaintiff files in federal court?

NO

28 USC 1441

REMOVAL

28 USC 1441(a)

defendant must file removal from state court to federal district within 30 days after receiving the complaint

federal court must have been able to have original jurisdiction over that claim

28 USC 1441(b)

forum defendant exception —> defendant cannot remove a case based on diversity jurisdiction if any party joined and served as a defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is brought

28 USC 1441(c)

an entire action may be removed if it includes

1. a claim arising under federal law, and

2. a separate claim that is not within the federal court’s original or supplemental jurisdiction

BUT the federal court must sever and remand the claims in which it lacks jurisdiction

home depot v jackson 2019

defendant cannot create a basis for removal by filing a federal counterclaim

Derivative Removal

may be removed to federal court, even if state court had no SMJ in the first place

ex. patent, copyright

Avitts v Amoco Prod 1995

a lawsuit may only be moved from state to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over it

28 USC 1446

procedure for removal

When does diversity removal need to be done?

within 1 yr of the suit being filed

Hain Celestial Group, Inc v Palmquist 2026

you can’t fix a lack of diversity that existed at the time of removal by later incorrectly dismissing the nondiverse defendant

must be remanded to state court

Bad faith exception to removal based on diversity

if the plaintiff intentionally kept the case non-removable until the 1 yr deadline passed just to keep it in state court, the deadline may not apply and it may be removabe to state court so plaintiff is not able to manipulate procedure

what does a notice of removal need to include?

short and plain statement

1446(b)(2)(A)

need consent of all defendants to remove, unless its class action

D Cummins Corp v US Fidelity & Guaranty Co 2014

plaintiff may join a non-diverse defendant to destroy diversity, in good faith

snap removal

removal between filing and being served

don’t need consent of all defendants

1442(a)

removal of cases against federal officers

Chevron USA inc v plaquemines parish 2026

lawsuit only needs to have a close or indirect relationship to federal duties to be removable

1443

removal of certain civil rights cases

1441(d)

removal of cases against foreign states

1441(e)

removal of certain multi-party accident causes

Complete pre-emption doctrine

when the federal question embedded in the state law claim is so complete that the claim isn’t really a state law claim, but instead a federal law claim —> can be removed

1441(a)

defendant cannot remove a case to any federal district they prefer … must be in district court that covers the area where the state court case is located

28 USC 1447

REMAND
must be filed within 30 days of removal

What issue can you remand for at any time before final judgment?

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction

1447(c)

if moving for remand based on anything besides SMJ, if it’s not done within 30 days —> waived

BP PLC v Mayor & City Council 2021

entire order to remand is reviewable, not just the principle on which the court decides warrants remanding

1447(d)

Personal Jurisdiction 2 part test

1. long arm statute authorizes it

2. constitutional; fair and reasonable

long arm statute

defines the reach of PJ in that state and specifies the contacts with that state which allow their courts to assert jurisdiction over the defendant

specific jurisdiction

1. defendant’s deliebrate contact with the state

2. plaintiff’s claim arose out of or sufficiently relates to those contacts

3. consistent with traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice

factors for traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice

1. plaintiff’s interests in suing in the forum

2. availability of witnesses in the forum state

3. forum state’s interests in the matter

4. extent to which the defendant would be inconveienced

general jurisdiction

PJ exists b/c defendant either is domiciled there or corporations have minimum contacts with the state

milliken v meyer 1940

domicile is enough to give a state PJ over a person, even if that person is physically somewhere else when sued

full faith and credit clause

in personam judgmenets in state courts can transfer to other state courts

plaintiff can take the judgment to another state where defendant has assets and enforce it there

can in rem jurisdictions be enforced in other states?

NO

in rem jurisdiction

jurisdiction over the property

court must attach that property over power of the court

writ of attachment

order from court to take control of real or personal property defendant owned in the forum

quasi in rem jurisdiction

the property is being used to get jurisdiction over the defendant

4(k)(1)(A) Federal Long Arm Rule

can serve process throughout state in which federal court sits

serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes PJ over defendant where court has general jurisdiction over them

Bulge Rule

if joined or impleaded, PJ can be exercised even if the defendant is within 100 miles of the courthouse

special appearance

D can appear to challenge PJ in court without waiving PJ

interlocutory appeal

appealing an issue in the middle of a case

collateral challenge

D can challenge PJ after the original case is over, rather than appearing in the original lawsuit

RISK —> default judgment

Consent through conduct

a party voluntarily participates in a lawsuit in a way that shows they accept the court’s authority over them, rather than objecting to PJ

Adam v Saenger 1938

plaintiff consents to court’s PJ by filing a counterclaim in that court

forum selection clauses

states can require companies to consent to PJ as a condition of doing business in that state

implied consent

conduct treated as consent b/c D voluntarily engaged in activity the state regulates

Hess v. Walowski

implied consent for D driving in Massachussets and getting in car accident

Insurance Corp of Ireland LTD v Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee 1982

court can deem a party waived PJ if the party fails to comply with court orders

Can you waive SMJ?

NO

Transient Presence/Tag Jurisdiction

court can exercise PJ over an individual who is physically present in the state and personally served with process while there, even if they have no permanent residence or other significant connections to the state

does transient presence apply to corporations?

NO

pennoyer v neff 1878

judgments issued without PJ are void —> cannot use full faith and creidt

international shoe v washington (1945)

1. PJ is based on defendant’s minimum contacts

2. that constitute purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of forum’s laws

3. connections between contracts and plaintiff’s claim arise from or relate to

4. consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

steps to check for minimum contacts under Intl Shoe

1. check long arm — wide or limited

2. check constitutionality under 14th amendment

3. general or specific

4. if specific —> apply minimum contacts test

Shaffer v Heitner 1977

minimum contacts test applies to in rem and quasi in rem actions in state court

World Wide Volkswagen v Woodson 1980

Refines minimum contacts to emphasize it must include purposeful availment

fairplay and substantial justice test

1. burden on D (primary)

2. forum state’s interest

3. P’s interest

4. efficiency

5. states shared interest in furthering fundamental social policies

Calder v Jones 1984

intentional conduct calculated to cause injury to the forum state supports PJ

burger king corp v rudzewicz 1985

Fair play and substantial justice can sometimes make jurisdiction reasonable with fewer minimum contacts than otherwise required

Minimum contacts test

1. purposefully directed activities

2. whether harms arising out of or relating to those activities are a cause of litigation

Walden v Fiore 2014

plaintiff cannot be the only link between defendant and forum

Daimler AG v Bauman 2014

general jurisdiction is limited to where defendant is at home (domicile)

Martinez v Aero Caribbean 2014

Transient Presence does not apply to corporations; can’t just serve an agent when passing through like a person

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Super Ct 2017

for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be a connection between forum and the specific claims at issue

Shuker v Smith & Nephew 2018

Stream of Commerce Theory (when D’s product ends up in forum state) for PJ does NOT satisfy international shoe

Ford motor co v MT 8th JDC 2021

claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum

arise out of

you caused it here

relate to

continuous and systematic ties

can meeting “relate to” satisfy minimum contact rule without direct causation?

YES

Mallory v Norfolk S. Railway Co 2023

consent supports PJ

Fuld v Palestinian Liberation Organization 2025

a federal PJ statute may use a more flexible standard if reasonable ties between jurisdiction to conduct involving the US and implicating foreign policy concerns

28 USC 1391

VENUE appropriate if

1. district where any D lives, if all Ds are in state

2. district where substantial part of events giving rise to cause of action occurred

3. any district where D is subject to PJ (if nothing else)

Uffner v LA Reunion Francaise 2001

substantial events satisfied 1391 (b)

can a court bring up an issue of PJ on its own (sua sponte)?

NO — uffner