Civ Pro - Federal Question Flashcards
(2 cards)
An author from State A filed a claim in federal court sitting in State B against a publisher headquartered in State B. The complaint alleged that the publisher plagiarized a portion of the author’s book and asserted both a copyright infringement claim under federal law and an unfair business practices claim under an applicable State B statute. At trial, the publisher presented evidence that the author never filed the copyright infringement claim with the appropriate federal agency, as required by the federal statute, thereby invalidating the copyright infringement claim. The claim for unfair business practices, however, was still capable of obtaining a favorable verdict. The publisher moved for dismissal of the state law claim as well.
How should the federal court rule?
A The court must remand the state law claim to state court because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction without the copyright infringement claim.
B The court must dismiss the state law claim, because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction without the copyright infringement claim.
C The court should, in its discretion, retain jurisdiction over the state law claim because the trial has begun.
D The court should, in its discretion, dismiss the state law claim because the jury has not yet begun to deliberate.
C The court should, in its discretion, retain jurisdiction over the state law claim because the trial has begun.
The court may dismiss or hear the state law claim in its discretion, but will likely retain jurisdiction over it. When a claim is in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has a state law claim against the defendant that cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction, the federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim if the federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. The court may continue to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state claim even though the federal claim is dismissed on the merits. However, the state claim should probably also be dismissed (without prejudice) if the federal claim is dismissed before trial. Here, although the federal copyright claim was invalid, it was deemed to be so during trial, before a verdict was rendered. Since the case is currently being tried, the court will likely hear the state claim for the sake of judicial economy. (B) is wrong, because, as stated above, the federal court has the discretion under supplemental jurisdiction to hear the state claim. (A) is wrong for the same reason, and also because remand can only occur when the action was commenced in state court and then removed to federal court. (D) is wrong because, although the decision is within the court’s discretion, the start of the trial is the point at which a federal court will usually retain jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims for the sake of judicial economy.
A plaintiff, a citizen of State A, sued a defendant, a citizen of State B, alleging that the defendant violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to serve the plaintiff in her restaurant. The plaintiff brought his suit in state court in State B, asking for damages of $100,000. The defendant seeks to remove the case to the United States District Court for the District of State B, and the plaintiff opposes removal.
Is the case properly removable?
A No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
B No, because the state court has concurrent jurisdiction, making removal improper.
C Yes, because diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.
D Yes, because a federal question has been presented.
D Yes, because a federal question has been presented.
The motion should be granted. The case may be removed because the federal court has federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s action, because it is based on the Civil Rights Act. (A) is incorrect. The limitation on removal by defendants who are citizens of the state in whose court the action was brought applies only to diversity actions. (C) is incorrect. Although diversity of citizenship appears to be present in this action, it is only incidental. The removal statute provides that “any civil action of which the district courts have [federal question jurisdiction] shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.” [28 U.S.C. §1441(b)] When both a federal question and diversity jurisdiction exist, the federal question jurisdiction normally “trumps” diversity jurisdiction. In any event, if this case were to be solely based on diversity, the defendant could not remove because she is a citizen of the forum state. (B) is incorrect because, although a state court may have concurrent jurisdiction, this jurisdiction, by itself, would not prevent removal.
