Civ Pro Flashcards
(10 cards)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Intro paragraph
A federal court can only hear cases where it has subject matter jurisdiction, because it is a court of limited jurisdiction. A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction if: (a) there is a federal question; (b) there is diversity of citizenship among the parties; OR (c) supplemental jurisdiction is present. Subject matter jurisdiction is not waived if a party fails to raise it at trial. It may be raised at any time, even on appeal.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Federal Question Jurisdiction exists if a well-pleaded Complaint alleges a claim that arises under: (a) federal law; (b) the U.S. Constitution; OR (c) United States treaties. The plaintiff MUST be enforcing a federal right, and the federal question of law must be present on the face of
the Complaint. Raising a defense under a federal law is NOT sufficient to trigger federal question jurisdiction.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Diversity of Citizenship
(1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and defendants (no plaintiff can be from the same state
as any defendant); AND (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Diversity jurisdiction is determined at the time the action is commenced; a post-filing change of citizenship is irrelevant absent bad faith.
Citizenship:
A party’s citizenship is determined by
their domicile.
For a natural person, domicile is determined
by the party’s: (1) residence (physical
presence in the state); AND (2) subjective
intent to make the state their permanent home
A corporation has dual citizenship, and
is deemed to be a domiciliary of: (1) the
state of its principal place of business
(the corporation’s “nerve center” – where
officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporation’s activities); AND (2) any
state where it is incorporated.
A partnership, sole-proprietorship, or
unincorporated association is deemed to be
a domiciliary of the state of every partner/
member/owner.
Amount in Controversy:
The amount in controversy is based on the damages alleged in good faith in the Complaint (not the actual award), unless it is legally
certain that the plaintiff cannot recover the specified amount.
A plaintiff may aggregate his claims against
one defendant, or against multiple defendants if all are joint tortfeasors (where the defendants are jointly and severally liable).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Supplemental Jurisdiction
If a federal court has original jurisdiction (subject matter jurisdiction) over some of the claims in the action, then it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional state court claims when they arise from the same “case or controversy”. Generally, such claims
must arise from a common nucleus of operative fact (the same transaction or occurrence). However, several limitations exist.
- Supplemental jurisdiction is limited in that it
CANNOT be used to overcome a lack of diversity - A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over State claims when: (a) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law; (b) the claim substantially predominates over the claim(s) of which the district court had original jurisdiction; (c)
the federal district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction; OR (d) in exceptional circumstances.
Removal
A defendant may remove a case to a federal court sitting in the State where the claim was filed if:
(1) the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction (original jurisdiction);
(2) all defendants agree;
(3) no defendant is a resident of the forum state; AND
(4) removal is sought within 30 days of either service of the Summons or receiving the initial pleading (whichever period is shorter).
A case CANNOT be removed more than one year after commencement in a diversity action.
Personal Jurisdiction
A federal court MUST have personal jurisdiction over a defendant for its judgment to be binding. A federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the State
courts where the federal district court is located. Jurisdiction over a defendant normally falls into two categories: (1) the traditional bases of jurisdiction; and (2) a State’s long-arm statute.
Traditional Bases of Jurisdiction: The traditional bases for asserting personal jurisdiction include: (a) domicile; (b) transient jurisdiction (presence in the State when served); (c) consent; or (d) waiver (appearing in the action without
objecting to jurisdiction). The above grounds comport with the Constitutional requirements of due process
Long-Arm Jurisdiction: To exert personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is not a resident of the forum state: (1) the forum state must have a long arm statute; AND (2)
the Constitutional requirements of due process must be met.
Where a state’s long-arm statute allows personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the Constitution, then the long-arm analysis is the same as the constitutional analysis, which requires: (1) that the defendant have sufficient
minimum contacts with the forum state, (2) so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Both prongs must be satisfied.
Prong 1 – Minimum Contacts (Contacts &
Relatedness): Sufficient minimum contacts exist when either general jurisdiction OR specific jurisdiction is present.
General jurisdiction exists when the
defendant’s contacts with the forum state
are so substantial and of such nature that
the defendant is essentially at home in the
state.
Specific jurisdiction exists when the suit
arises out of or relates to the defendant’s
contacts with the forum state. There MUST
be a connection between the forum state
and the underlying controversy (principally,
an activity or an occurrence that takes place
in the forum state).
Prong 2 – Fair Play and Substantial Justice (Fairness):
Even if the minimum contacts test is met,
it MUST be fair and reasonable for the
defendant to be sued in the forum state
(so that traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice are not offended).
Service of Process and Notice
In federal court, the Summons and Complaint must be served upon the defendant within 90 days of filing the Complaint. Otherwise, the court MUST either: (a) dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant; OR (b)
order that service be made within a specified time. However, if the plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve within 90 days, the court MUST extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.
Service may be made by any person who: (1) is at least 18 years old; AND (2) not a party to the action.
The method of service must be consistent with the Due Process Clause, which requires that notice be reasonably calculated to make the parties aware of the action and give them an opportunity to object.
Service upon an Individual: An individual may be
served by delivering the Summons and Complaint: (a) to the individual personally; (b) to someone of suitable age and discretion at the individual’s current dwelling or usual place of abode; (c) to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process; OR (d) in accordance with the
state law of the forum state or where service is made.
Service upon a Corporation, Partnership,
or Association: A corporation, partnership, or
unincorporated association may be served: (a) in accordance with state law of the forum state or where service is made; OR (b) by delivering the Summons and Complaint to an officer (i.e. CEO), managing agent, general agent, or authorized agent (by appointment or by law) of the corporation.
