Civ Pro

Question 1

What is Subject Matter Jurisdiction?

Answer 1

Subject Matter Jurisdiction refers to a court’s competence to hear and determine cases of the general class and subject to which the proceedings in question belong.

Question 2

What are the five most common congressional grants of subject matter jurisdiction?

Answer 2

1. Federal Question Jurisdiction
2. diversity jurisdiction
3. supplemental jurisdiction
4. removal jurisdiction
5. legislative jurisdiction

Question 3

The federal court must presume an ______ of jurisdiction until it determines that the matter falls within its rightful jurisdiction. The burden is on ________.

Answer 3

The federal court must presume an absence of jurisdiction until it determines that the matter falls within its rightful jurisdiction. The burden is on the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.

Question 4

When and under what circumstances may the parties or court waive subject matter jurisdiction?

Answer 4

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived nor may it be agreed to by the parties because it relates to a fundamental distribution in power.

Question 5

When may parties object to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

Answer 5

• An objection to SMJ can be presented by any party at any stage during the proceeding.
• It may be raised during appeal.
• It may be raised by the court.
• If the issue of SMJ was never contested, the the judgement ordinarily may not be challenged collaterally on that basis.

Question 6

What are the Abstention Doctrines?

Answer 6

1. Pullman abstention Doctrine.
2. Younger abstention doctrine.
3. Buford
4. Colorado River

Question 7

Pullman Abstention Doctrine.

Answer 7

A federal court may abstain from hearing a case or stay the matter pending the outcome of a state court action when a resolution of a state law issue by the state court would eliminate the need for the federal court to decide a federal constiutional issue. R.R. Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941)

• Stated Differently, there are three elements to this claim: (1) the case presents both federal constitutional and state law claims (2) the state law claims are ambiguous and have not been interpreted and (3) the resolution of the state law claim has the potential to resolve the dispute.
• Notice. This needs to be a case that turns on a federal constitutional, not a federal statutory issue.
• In Pullman the resolution of Texas law issue could preclude the need for a court to ever reach a constitutional claim.

Question 8

What are the three elements to the Pullman abstention doctrine?

Answer 8

The court may abstain under this doctrine only if: (1) the case presents both federal constitutional and state law claims (2) the state law claims are ambiguous and have not been interpreted and (3) the resolution of the state law claim has the potential to resolve the dispute.

Question 9

Is Pullman abstention mandatory?

Answer 9

No. Pullman abstention doctrine is discretionary and not mandatory. A federal court may choose not to exercise it even if all three elements are met.

Question 10

When might a court choose to not exercise Pullman abstention?

Answer 10

To avoid prejudice to a plaintiff alleging the violation of an important federal right that would result from the delay of the adjudication of the case in state court.

Question 11

Why is Pullman problematic?

Answer 11

The Pullman doctrine may result in full litigation in state court, which is as lengthy as it is costly, followed by more litigation in federal court.

Question 12

What is the Buford abstention doctrine?

Answer 12

Where there is the pendency of a state court action simillar to one brought in federal court, the court may abstain from hearing a case or stay the matter pending the outcome of a state court action in order to avoid federal involvement with a complex state regulatory scheme.

Question 13

What is the rational behind the Buford abstention doctrine?

Answer 13

The expertise of certain agencies and state courts should be given deference. If a generalist court of appeals selected to hear certain types of cases that implicate a complex state regulatory scheme confusion and inconsistency may result.

Question 14

Younger abstention doctrine

Answer 14

A federal court should abstain from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other unusual circumstances calling for equitable relief.

Question 15

What is the Policy Rational Behind the Younger abstention doctrine?

Answer 15

• Congress should “permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts.”
• Federalism

Question 16

Colorado Rivers abstention

Answer 16

Parallel proceedings that go beyond mere waste of judicial resources, such as when there is a federal policy of unitary adjudication of the issues

Question 17

When must the court transfer to another federal court?

Answer 17

1) the federal court lacks jurisdiction
2) there exists another federal court in which the action could have been brought at the time it was filed.
3) it is in the interests of justice to transfer the case.

Question 18

If an action is transferred from one federal court to another, when is the action considered to have been filed?

Answer 18

The action is treated as if it was filed in the transferee court on the date upon which it was actually filed in the transferor court. 28 U.S.C. § 1631

• Example. District Court abused its discretion in failing to consider demoted federal employee’s request that her appeal from adverse administrative decision be transferred to Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, where it properly belonged, and instead dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Taylor v. Social Sec. Admin., 842 F.2d 232, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3472 (9th Cir. 1988).
  28 USCS § 1631

Question 19

What is the Constiutional Authority that Authorizes Federal Question Jurisdiction?

What is the statutory authority for Federal Question Jurisdiction?

Answer 19

• Article III, Section 2 of the US Constiution provides that federal judicial power shall extend to all cases “arising under this Constiution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.”
• The Congressional grant of federal question jurisdiction is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constiution, laws, or treatises of the United States.”

Question 20

State and federal courts have _______ jurisdiction of federal question claims, except when Congress _________.

Answer 20

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction of federal question claims, except when Congress expressly provides that the jurisdiction of the federal courts is exclusive.

Question 21

In what three instances does the federal court have exclusive jurisdiction over federal question claims?

Answer 21

Congress has expressly provided that the jurisdiction of the federal courts is exclusive with respect to:

• The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
• Patent and Copyright Cases
• Bankrupcy Proceedings.

Question 22

When is there 1331 jurisdiction?

Answer 22

When a claim presents a federal question, that is, the action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the federal government.

Question 23

When does a claim “arise under” the Constiution, laws, or treatises of the United States? (Clear Cut Cases)

Answer 23

There is no uniform, bright-line standard for determining whether an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States. But In general, if a cause of action is either expressly or impliedly created by federal law, then federal question jurisdiction will exist.

Question 24

What type of case is going to raise a more borderline issue as to whether the action arises under the Constiution, laws, or treatises of the United States Government?

Answer 24

Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim that implicates federal law in the elements that P must prove.

Question 25

When will a state law claim arise out of federal law?

Answer 25

Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disputing the federal state balance approved by Congress. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S., 251, 258 (2013).

Question 26

What were the Facts in Gunn v. Minton and what was the issue raised?

Answer 26

A malpractice claim against former lawyer for not raising a patent law claim.

Minton, as Plaintiff, brought a malpractice action against his former attorney Gunn (the defendant). Minton alledged in his Malpratice action that Gunn had failed to raise a particular exception under federal patent law in a previous action in which Gunn represented Minton. On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court found that the case should have been brought in federal court because Minton’s malpractice claim turned on a question of federal patent law. This raised the issue of whether the state court’s resolution of a hypothetical question of patent law was substantial enough to mandate federal review.

So notice a few things going on in this case.

• Federal Patent law claims is an area where congress has given the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction.
• In a Mal practice claim there has to be a showing that the lawyer was negligent. To prove negligence they have to look at the applicable law, which is federal patent law. Notice how federal law thus becomes apart of the essential elements that must be proven by the plaintiff. Contrast this with Louisville railroad where the federal con law issue would only be raised in the defense to the plaintiff’s claim.

Question 27

What does it mean for the federal issue to be “substantial” to the case?

Answer 27

Rule. It must be substantial to the federal system as a whole and not just the particular case. An issue that is merely hypothetical in that it has no real world consequences is not substantial.

Example. In Dunn

Question 28

What was the holding in Gunn v. Minton?

Answer 28

The state law claim did not arise under federal patent law.

Cases that originate in State Court under State Law might also arise under Federal Law if:

(1) the case necessarily deals with a federal issue

Here, the Malpratice action necessarily deals with a federal patent question because the negligence of the attorney turns on their non-use of a particular patent law exception. Minton must show that he would have won the case but for Gunn’s failure to raise an experimental-use argunemnt.

(2) the issue is actually disputed

Minton argues that the experimental-use exception would have allowed him to prevail and Gunn Disagrees.

(3) the issue is substantial

The issue was not substantial because it involved only a hypothetical question with no real-world consequences. Any preclusive effect would be felt only by the parties to the action.

(4) Disrupt the balance between federal and judicial responsibilities

States have a right to maintain a standard of professional practice and there is no evidence that Congress intended to deprive state courts of such cases solely because a hypothetical patent case is at issue.

Question 29

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Answer 29

As a general matter, federal question jurisdiction exists only when the federal law issue is presented in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. The determination of jurisdiction must be made by considering only the necessary elements to the plaintiff’s cause of action. It is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction that the complaint alleges an anticipated federal law defense.

Question 30

What rule comes out of Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)

Answer 30

Rule. The Determination of Jurisdiction must be made by considering only the “well pleaded complaint”, that is, the necessary elements to the plaintiff’s cause of action. It is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction that the compliant alleges an anticipated federal law defense.

Illustration. P brought a breach of contract claim against D, seeking specific performance of a contract. D had refused to renew P’s lifetime railroad pass after congress passed an act forbidding granting free transportation. P alleged in their complaint that the act did not preclude their lifetime free passes (which were apart of a settlement agreement with D) and that if it did then the law violated their Fith Amendment rights. The case was reversed b/c the federal court did not have jurisdiction. The only Constitutional claims were raised in response to anticipated defenses, and not in the original claim. The orgional claim was a breach of contract, which is governed by state law.

Question 31

Answers and Counterclaims are/are not considered in determining the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Answer 31

Answers and counterclaims are not considered in determining the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Question 32

What is the Constiutional Basis for Diversity Jurisidcition? What is the statutory basis for diversity jurisdiction?

Answer 32

• Article III, Section 2 of the US Constiution permits congress to extend federal judicial power to controversies “between citizens of different states and between a state or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.”
• The Statutory basis is 1332

Question 33

Under 1332 when is a U.S. district court granted jurisdiction?

Answer 33

(1) the parties to an action are either
- citizens of a different states
- citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
- a foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a different state or different states

AND

(2) the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $75,000

Question 34

Would an amount in controversy of exactly $75,000 satisfy diversity jurisdiction?

Answer 34

No. The Amount in Controversy must exceed $75,000.