Civ Pro Midterm keeper

Courts of General Jurisdiction

State trial courts that possess the authority to hear every category of dispute, including federal claims, unless Congress has expressly made federal jurisdiction exclusive.

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

Federal courts that are empowered to hear only those cases affirmatively authorized by a statutory grant from Congress and permitted under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Non-Waivability of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The structural principle codified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) providing that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or stipulation, and may be raised at any point in the litigation by any party or by the court on its own initiative.

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)

A statutory exception to presumptive concurrent state-court jurisdiction that explicitly bars state courts from hearing claims arising under patent, plant variety protection, and copyright laws.

Minimal Diversity

The constitutional baseline under Article III, Section 2, which requires only that at least one plaintiff be diverse in state citizenship from at least one defendant, with no statutory amount in controversy requirement.

Complete Diversity Rule

The statutory construction of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 derived from Strawbridge v. Curtiss requiring that every plaintiff be a citizen of a different state from every defendant, meaning no shared state citizenship may sit on opposing sides of the dispute.

Federal Ingredient Rule

The broad Article III "arising under" standard established in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, providing that constitutional federal question jurisdiction exists whenever federal law forms an ingredient of the original cause, such as a federally chartered entity being a party.

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

The interpretation of statutory federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 established in Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley requiring that the federal issue appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint, rather than as an anticipated defense or response to a defense.

Corporate Citizenship

The standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) assigning a corporation dual citizenship: every state in which it has been incorporated and the single state of its principal place of business.

Nerve Center Test

The Supreme Court standard established in Hertz Corp. v. Friend defining a corporation's principal place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) as the location where its officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities, typically its corporate headquarters.

Individual Domicile

The state where a natural person physically resides with the concurrent intent to remain indefinitely; a party maintains their existing domicile until a new physical residence is established alongside an intent to remain there indefinitely.

Citizenship of Unincorporated Associations

The jurisdictional rule from Carden v. Arkoma Associates providing that partnerships, LLCs, and other unincorporated entities take on the state citizenship of every single one of their partners or members.

Permanent Resident Alien Exception to Diversity

The statutory restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) excluding federal diversity jurisdiction in civil actions between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and domiciled in that same state.

Domestic Relations Exception

A judicially recognized doctrine reaffirmed in Ankenbrandt v. Richards holding that federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction to issue or modify divorce, alimony, or child custody decrees.

Legal Representative Rule

The statutory rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) providing that the legal representative of a decedent's estate is deemed to possess only the citizenship of the decedent, rendering the executor's personal citizenship irrelevant.

Amount in Controversy Requirement

The statutory condition under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requiring that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $75,000$, exclusive of interest and costs.

Legal-Certainty Test

The doctrine from St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. providing that a plaintiff's good-faith claim for damages controls the amount in controversy unless it appears to a legal certainty from the governing law or facts that the plaintiff cannot recover in excess of $75,000$.

Single-Plaintiff Claim Aggregation

The diversity principle permitting a single plaintiff suing a single defendant to aggregate the dollar values of all claims asserted against that defendant, whether transactionally related or unrelated, to satisfy the amount in controversy threshold.

Joint Liability Aggregation

The principle providing that when multiple defendants are sued jointly and severally for an indivisible injury exceeding $75,000$, the full amount is considered in controversy with respect to each individual defendant.

Holmes Creation Test

The primary test for 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction articulated in American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., stating that a suit arises under federal law when federal law creates the private cause of action asserted.

Grable Test

The four-part framework from Grable & Sons and Gunn v. Minton establishing that a state-law claim arises under federal law only if an embedded federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial to the federal system as a whole, and capable of resolution without disrupting the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Geographic Removal Rule

The statutory requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) dictating that a state court action must be removed exclusively to the federal district court and division embracing the geographic place where the state court action is pending.

Forum-Defendant Rule

The restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) prohibiting removal of an action solely based on diversity jurisdiction if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

Rule of Unanimity

The procedural requirement codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) providing that all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the notice of removal.

Later-Served Defendant Rule

The statutory provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B)–(C) granting each defendant an individual 30-day removal window starting upon service, and permitting an earlier-served defendant who missed their own window to consent to a later-served defendant's timely removal.

Thirty-Day Remand Rule

The statutory mandate under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requiring that any motion to remand based on a defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction be filed within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal.

Severance and Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)

The mechanism whereby a defendant removes an entire action containing a federal claim joined with an unrelated state claim outside supplemental jurisdiction, requiring the federal court to sever and remand the unrelated state claim back to state court.

Common Nucleus of Operative Fact

The constitutional standard from United Mine Workers v. Gibbs codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) requiring a non-federal, non-diverse claim to derive from the same factual foundation as an anchor claim within original federal jurisdiction so that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Discretionary Declination of Supplemental Jurisdiction

The statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permitting a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state claim is novel/complex, substantially predominates, all anchor federal claims are dismissed, or exceptional circumstances exist.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) Diversity Clawback

The statutory restriction barring supplemental jurisdiction over claims asserted by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 when the original federal anchor claim rests solely on diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.

Minimum Contacts

The due process test announced in International Shoe Co. v. Washington requiring that a nonresident defendant have sufficient ties with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Purposeful Availment

The constitutional requirement established in Hanson v. Denckla and World-Wide Volkswagen that personal jurisdiction must rest on the defendant's deliberate, intentional acts directing activities toward the forum state, rather than the unilateral act of a consumer or third party.

Calder Effects Test

The personal jurisdiction doctrine under Calder v. Jones and Walden v. Fiore providing that intentional tortious conduct must be aimed directly at the forum state itself, rather than merely impacting individuals who happen to reside there.

Stream of Commerce Plus

Justice O'Connor's plurality test in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court requiring an intentional act purposefully directed at the forum state (such as designing for the market, advertising, or establishing customer channels) beyond mere awareness that a product may enter the stream of commerce.

Substantial Affiliation Standard

The specific jurisdiction rule reaffirmed in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court holding that a claim must arise out of or relate to forum contacts, meaning a strict causal link is not required when the defendant systematically cultivates a forum market for the very product line involved.

Fair Play and Substantial Justice Factors

The five fairness considerations from Asahi that can independently defeat personal jurisdiction: burden on the defendant, forum state's interest, plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, the interstate judicial system's efficiency, and the shared substantive policy interests of the states.

General Jurisdiction

All-purpose personal jurisdiction permitting a court to hear any claim against a defendant regardless of where the underlying events occurred, restricted to forums where an individual is domiciled or a corporation is essentially at home.

Corporate At-Home Standard

The general jurisdiction standard articulated in Goodyear and Daimler AG v. Bauman providing that a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only in its place of incorporation and its principal place of business, barring exceptional cases where a temporary headquarters operates elsewhere (Perkins).

Tag Jurisdiction (Transient Jurisdiction)

Personal jurisdiction acquired by serving an individual defendant with process while they are voluntarily and physically present within the territory of the forum state, as upheld in Burnham v. Superior Court.

Collateral Attack on Personal Jurisdiction

The procedural strategy under Pennoyer v. Neff whereby a defendant completely defaults in the original forum and challenges personal jurisdiction for the first time in an enforcement court under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Enumerated Long-Arm Statute

A state statute that authorizes personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants only for claims arising out of specifically listed acts, such as transacting business, contracting to supply goods/services, or committing a tortious act within the state.

Catch-All Long-Arm Statute

A long-arm statute that extends a state court's personal jurisdiction to the outer limits of the state and federal Constitutions, collapsing the statutory inquiry directly into constitutional due process analysis.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A)

The rule establishing that a federal district court borrows and applies the long-arm statute and personal jurisdiction reach of the state courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court sits.

Residential Venue

The venue provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) establishing that a civil action may be brought in any judicial district in which any defendant resides, provided that all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located.

Transactional Venue

The venue provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) permitting suit in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property subject to the action is situated.

Fallback Venue

The venue rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) available only if no district satisfies residential or transactional venue, permitting suit in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Corporate Venue in Multi-District States

The rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) dictating that in a state with multiple judicial districts, a corporate defendant resides only in districts where its contacts would establish personal jurisdiction if that individual judicial district were treated as an independent state.

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Transfer

The statutory provision permitting a federal district court, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to transfer an action brought in a proper venue to any other federal district where it might have been brought or to which all parties consent.

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) Transfer or Dismissal

The statutory remedy directing a federal district court that has an action filed in an improper venue to either dismiss the case or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to any judicial district in which it could have been brought.

Forum Non Conveniens

The common-law doctrine applied in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno permitting a federal court to dismiss a case filed in a proper venue when the far more appropriate and convenient forum lies outside the federal court system, such as in a foreign nation or state court.

pro se

Many people either represent themselves

Declaratory judgment

tell them what the law is and hope they follow it, a type of remedy

Gordon

Domicile test

Strawbridge v. Curtis

complete diversity

Domestic Relations Exception

federal courts will not hear cases about domestic relations cases (divorce, custody, etc)

citizenship of corporations

depends on the state of incorporation and the principal place of business.

citizenship of Unincorporated Entities

determined by the citizenship of its members or partners.

st paul mercury test

if a claim seems high but is made in good faith, and if it conceivably could be awarded, then it meets the AIC requirement, if there are legal prohibitions (state law for ex) that means it is impossible for that amount to be awarded and it therefore isn't above $75k, it does not meet the AIC requirement

stream of commerce plus

Minimum contacts must be purposefully established (as in BK) (trying to faithfully apply WWV)

pure stream of commerce

Concurrence; t's enough to know it'll end up in a state if sold in that state

How do American state trial courts differ from federal trial courts regarding subject matter jurisdiction?

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and can hear any case unless Congress makes federal jurisdiction exclusive. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction authorized to hear only cases granted by statute from Congress that fall within Article III, Section 2.

What effect does a party stipulation or agreement have on a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction?

None. Parties cannot create subject matter jurisdiction by agreement, consent, waiver, or stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

When may a party or the court raise a defect in subject matter jurisdiction?

A lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, by any party (even the party who invoked federal jurisdiction), or sua sponte by the court itself under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Which types of claims does ONLY the federal court have SMJ over?

Patent claims.

How do the diversity and amount in controversy requirements differ between Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1332?

Article III is satisfied by minimal diversity and has no amount in controversy requirement, whereas 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity and an amount exceeding $75,000.

What is the standard for Article III 'arising under' jurisdiction established in Osborn v. Bank of the United States?

Article III requires only a 'federal ingredient' in the case, which is broader than statutory federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Why could the Supreme Court hear the federal issue on the merits in Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley after direct review from state court?

Article III 'arising under' jurisdiction is broader than § 1331, and Supreme Court review of state court final judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 is not restricted by the well-pleaded complaint rule.

What are the dual citizenships of a corporation for diversity purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)?

A corporation is deemed a citizen of every state by which it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.

How is an individual's state citizenship determined for diversity jurisdiction?

By domicile, which requires physical residence coupled with the intent to remain indefinitely; an existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired.

How is the citizenship of a partnership or unincorporated association determined?

A partnership is a citizen of every state of which any of its partners or members is a citizen.

What is the test for determining a corporation's principal place of business under Hertz Corp.?

The 'nerve center' test, which designates the place where the corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities (typically headquarters).

How does 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) limit alienage diversity when permanent resident aliens are involved?

It excludes diversity jurisdiction in a suit between a citizen of a state and a lawful permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state.

What is the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction established in Ankenbrandt?

Federal courts lack jurisdiction under the diversity statute to grant divorces, determine alimony, or issue child custody decrees, even between diverse parties.

Whose citizenship controls when the legal representative of a decedent's estate sues under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2)?

The legal representative is deemed to be a citizen only of the same state as the decedent; the representative's personal citizenship is disregarded.

What is the precise statutory threshold requirement for the amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)?

The matter in controversy must strictly exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

What is the St. Paul Mercury test?

It is the legal-certainty test governing the amount in controversy. The plaintiff's good-faith claim at filing controls unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim cannot exceed $75,000.

Can a single plaintiff aggregate multiple unrelated claims against a single defendant to satisfy § 1332(a)?

Yes. A single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant, whether related or completely unrelated.

Can multiple plaintiffs aggregate their separate claims against a single defendant to reach $75,000?

No. Multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate separate and distinct claims to cross the $75,000 threshold, even if their claims arise from the same incident.

Can a plaintiff aggregate the value of a defendant's counterclaim with their own claim to meet the amount in controversy?

No. A plaintiff's claim cannot be added to a defendant's counterclaim to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold.

How is the amount in controversy evaluated when multiple defendants are jointly and severally liable for a single injury?

If multiple defendants are each potentially liable for the entire harm, the full amount of the claim is in controversy against each defendant.

What is the well-pleaded complaint rule?

From Mottley, the well-pleaded complaint rule is that federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists only when the federal issue is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint, not as an anticipated defense.

What is the creation test?

A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action, written by Holmes to determine federal question subject matter jurisdiction under American Well Works Co.

Can a federal counterclaim filed by the defendant confer federal question jurisdiction on the action under Holmes?

No. Federal question jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint; a defendant's counterclaim cannot supply it.

Under the Grable and Gunn framework, when does a state-created claim arise under federal law?

When the federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial to the federal system as a whole, and (4) capable of resolution without disrupting the federal-state balance.

To which federal district court is a state court civil action removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)?

To the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such state action is pending.

What is the forum-defendant rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)?

A civil action otherwise removable solely on diversity jurisdiction cannot be removed if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.

What does the rule of unanimity require for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A)?

All defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.

How is the 30-day removal clock applied when multiple defendants are served at different times under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)?

Each defendant has 30 days from its own date of service to file a notice of removal, and an earlier-served defendant may consent to a later-served defendant's timely removal.

What is the deadline for removing a diversity case when an amended complaint first creates jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1)?

The notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of receiving the amended pleading, but no later than 1 year after commencement of the action unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith.

What is the time limit for moving to remand a case based on procedural defects versus a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)?

A motion to remand based on any defect other than subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal; lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time before final judgment.

How must a federal court handle a removed case that contains an unrelated state claim outside supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)?

The entire action is removed, and the district court must sever the unrelated state claim and remand it to the state court.

What is the standard for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs?

Supplemental claims must be part of the same constitutional case or controversy as the anchor claim, meaning they share a 'common nucleus of operative fact.'

When do the statutory exclusions to supplemental jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) apply?

Only when the district court's original subject matter jurisdiction over the anchor claim is founded solely on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

What may a district court do under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) when all anchor claims are dismissed early in the case?

The court has discretion to retain the supplemental state-law claims or decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss them without prejudice.

Under Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), can a plaintiff in a diversity suit assert a state-law claim against a non-diverse Rule 14 third-party defendant?

No. In diversity-only cases, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14.

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) bar supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant's Rule 14 third-party contribution claim against a co-citizen?

No. Section 1367(b) restricts only claims asserted by plaintiffs, so a defendant's impleader claim sharing a common nucleus comes in under § 1367(a).

What constitutional test for personal jurisdiction was established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington?

A nonresident defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Why is a customer's unilateral transport of a product into another state insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under World-Wide Volkswagen?

Foreseeability of product movement is not enough; purposeful availment requires that the defendant's own conduct and connection with the forum establish contacts.

What did the Supreme Court hold regarding the relationship between the defendant, forum, and litigation in Walden v. Fiore?

The defendant's own contacts must be with the forum state itself, not merely with persons who reside there.

Does entering into a contract with a forum resident automatically establish specific personal jurisdiction under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz?

No. A contract alone is insufficient; courts evaluate prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, contract terms, and actual course of dealing.