Civil Procedure

Question 1

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (generally)

Answer 1

The term subject matter jurisdiction refers to the competency of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class and subject to which the proceedings in question belong. The five types of subject matter jurisdiction include federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, removal jurisdiction, supplementary jurisdiction, and legislative jurisdiction.

The federal court must presume an absence of jurisdiction until a determination is made that case falls within its rightful jurisdiction. The burden is on the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or agree to by the parties, unlike personal jurisdiction. An objection to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the proceedings, including on appeal, by any party, or a court may raise the issue. If, however, subject matter jurisdiction is not contested, then a judgment ordinarily may not be challenged collaterally on that basis.

Question 2

Abstention

Answer 2

A court with subject matter jurisdiction is generally required to adjudicate the controversy despite the pendency of a controversy of a similar issue in a state court. A federal court may abstain from hearing a case or stay an action pending resolution in state court under the following limited circumstances:

1. Resolution of state issue in state court eliminates the need for the federal court to determine a federal constitutional issue;
2. Avoidance of federal involvement with a complex state regulatory scheme or a matter of great importance to the state;
3. the action involves punishment of an individual for criminal activity or contempt of court, or the imposition of a civil fine, and the federal court is asked to enjoin the activity.
4. 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 3

Federal Intervention

Answer 3

There are limited circumstances where federal intervention is appropriate. The plaintiff must demonstrate unusual circumstances calling for federal equitable relief, significant and dire irreparable injury, or prosecutorial bad faith, then the federal court may intercede.

Question 4

Transfer to another court

Answer 4

A federal court that lacks jurisdiction must, in the interest of justice, transfer a case to another court in which it could have been brought at the time it was filed. The action is treated as if it was filed in the transferee court on the date it was filed with the transferor court.

Question 5

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Answer 5

Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution provides that the federal judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Question 6

Concurrent jurisdiction

Answer 6

State courts and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction of federal question claims, unless Congress expressly provides that jurisdiction is exclusive to the federal courts, such as with cases arising under the Securities Exchange Act, patent and copyright proceedings, and bankruptcy actions.

Question 7

In Personam Jurisdiction

Answer 7

To warrant the assertion of in personam jurisdiction, a defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate (foresee) being taken to court there. Foreseeability depends on whether a defendant recognizes or anticipates that by running his business, he runs the risk of being party to a suit in a particular state. This is the “purposeful availment” requirement.

Question 8

Judge as Fact Finder (no jury trial)

Answer 8

When a judge is the finder of fact, the judge must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. A judge may do so on the record rather than in a written opinion.

Question 9

Grounds for new trial

Answer 9

One ground for granting a new trial upon motion by a party is that newly discovered evidence that existed at the time of trial was excusably overlooked and would likely have altered the outcome of the trial. Another is when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or that the damages awarded were excessive.