SMJ

where does Subject matter jurisdiction have authority

•  constitutional authority:

  •  Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

• Statuary authority:

  •  Diversity Jurisdiction(28 U.S.C. § 1332)

• Federal Question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

what is motion 12(b)(1)

: motion asserts the court can't hear the particular type of case presented, regardless of whether it could rightly exercise power over the defendant

what is motion 12(b)(2):

 motion asserts that a defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff then bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction exists

what is Diversity jurisdiction

•  federal diversity statute, 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 of interest and costs, and is between—

(1) citizens of different States;

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;

what is complete diversity

the plaintiff must be a resident of a state that is completely different from the defendant

what are the requirements for Diversity Jurisdiction

1. complete diversity

2. the amount in controversy between the parties must exceed $75,000.

how is an individuals diversity jurisdiction determined

• It is overall based on their respective states of domicile and intention to stay in said state for indefinite period of time

• Domicile is established establishing physical presence et intention to stay in a certain state

how is a Corporation diversity jurisdiction determined

• 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 . . . .” = dual citizenship

• “principal place of business” refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. Aka the nerve center

• DCC(Directing controlling, Coordinating)

how is an unincorporated Associations diversity jurisdiction determined

• Look for: LLC.

• treated as a collection of individuals. Thus, the citizenship of such entities tracks the citizenship of all constituent members of the organization.

how is a Legal Representative diversity jurisdiction determined

• Their citizenship is tied to the person they are representing

• “the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent.”

how is a Class Action diversity jurisdiction determined

• When determining diversity of citizenship for class actions, only the citizenships of the named class representatives are to be considered, not the citizenships of the unnamed class members.( minimal diversity)

• Note that when jurisdiction is exercised under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the citizenships of all class members are taken into account.

why did the court require it for diversity case in Strawbridge v Curtiss?

to create a neutral forum for the case being brought to court

what is important of the time of filing

• As along as there is complete diversity when the matter was filed, it does not matter if there is subsequent changes in the citizenship of the parties

•  exception to the time-of-filing rule that permits a court to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute that initially lacked complete diversity if the jurisdictional defect is subsequently cured by the dismissal of the party that destroyed complete diversity.(RULE 21)

where are there Exceptions on what federal court will and will not do:

1. collusive or improper joinder

2. The domestic relations expectation

3. the probate matter expectation

Collusive or improper joinder in federal court

• Efforts to manipulate the citizenship of the parties in an effort to create (not destroy) diversity

• Improper joinder

  • can also be established by showing the “inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.”

domestic relations under federal court

Federal courts may not hear cases seeking the issuance of a divorce, an award of spousal support, or child custody decrees. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992)

The probate matters exception under federal court

• federal courts may not probate or annul a will, administer a decedent’s estate, or dispose of property that is in the custody of a probate court

• However, federal courts may in some cases decide matters that do involve a state’s probate law

Alienage Jurisdictions

• special class of diversity jurisdiction involving non-U.S. citizens (“aliens”) as litigants.

• By law when they are aligned against a citizen of the US  or they are additional parties to the case

• the statute does not permit aliens to be adversaries without the presence of citizens of different U.S. states on both sides of the action, meaning there is no diversity jurisdiction over disputes involving only an alien versus another alien

what is amount in Controversy

Rule of it: Once diversity of citizenship is established, the amount in controversy between the parties must exceed $75,000.( 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a))

Requirements at the time of file for amount in controversy

• must exceed $75,000

• exclusive interest in cost

• Be established in Good faith

what would happen if there is no amount established at the time of filing

• Look for the thing lost in Good faith you can assert damages that could exceed $75,000

• Car accident

  • Car

  • Medical expensive

  • Emotional support

  • Wages

Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to 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 their Authority.

Aggregation single to single rule

• only [ ] in cases in which a single plaintiff seeks to aggregate two or more of his own claims against a single defendant

Aggregation many parties rule

•  assert claims based on a common undivided interest, such as joint ownership of property.

• the language of aggregation is used in this instance

• the fact that two plaintiffs have claims that arise out of the same incident or contract does not make them claims that arise out of a common,

• Undivided: one claim but the amount is divided

aggregation Single v double claim

• that aggregation is permitted is when a plaintiff asserts claims against multiple defendants based on joint-and-several liability.

• Joint liability:  that two or more parties share the responsibility for repaying a debt or addressing a legal obligation. A joint liability allows parties to share the risks associated with taking on debt and to protect themselves in the event of lawsuits.

• Federal Question jurisdiction rule

• (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

  • The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

  •  ensures federal courts have the authority to interpret and apply federal law consistently.

  • Arising under: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

American well works Creation Test

which asks whether the plaintiff’s cause of action was created by federal law (such as a private cause of action created by the U. Congress, such as a federal trademark cause of action)

The Grable Standard

• "imbedded federal “ingredient”

• whether state-law claims involving federal issues qualify for federal question jurisdiction is:

  • “does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Supplemental jurisdiction main rule

• Rule: 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Supplemental Jurisdiction.

  • (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Supplemental jurisdiction purpose

• Either federal question or diversity

• Somebody, plaintiff or defendant trying to asserted  a new claim in court not from the orginal complaint

Supplemental jurisdiction 1367 section B:

• Only to do  a throw analysis for supplemental jurisdiction in the context of based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

•  a set of “claims by plaintiffs” that do not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction in the context of based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

when can a case thrown out under Supplemental jurisdiction  1367 section B:

• Third Parties—claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rule 14;

• Required (or “Necessary”) Parties—claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rule 19;

• Permissive Parties—claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rule 20; and

• Intervening Parties—claims by plaintiffs against parties intervening under Rule 24

what does 1367 B section 2 say

co-plaintiffs that do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement would qualify for supplemental jurisdiction because they would be part of the same case or controversy, see § 1367(a), and § 1367(b) makes no mention of disqualifying claims asserted by plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 (permissive joinder) or Rule 23 (joinder of plaintiffs as a class action). But CANNOT join under Rule 19 or Rule 24

under 1637 section C how can the court say no regardless of section A and B

(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

removal jurisdiction rule

• Rule: 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal of Civil Actions.

  • (a) * * * [A]ny 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.

Limits on Removability Imposed

• Removal based on diversity citizenship

• (b)(2) A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 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. forum-state defendant rule.

Procedure for removal of civil actions

• 28 US Code 1446

• A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.

what is the time limit to use removal jurisdiction

• Each defendant in an action has 30 days after receipt of service of the complaint to file a notice of removal with the federal court

• becomes removable because of a change in parties or amendments to the complaint.

• Thus, the propriety of removal jurisdiction is measured at the time of the filing of the notice of removal, not the complaint.