Civil Procedure Flashcards
Subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only hear cases where it has SMJ. SMJ exists if there is a federal question, if there is diversity of citizenship, or in the case of supplemental jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction (CA)
California divides SMJ into three defined categories:
(1) Unlimited civil cases – Requires greater than $25k amount in controversy and includes the full range of motions and remedies.
(2) Limited civil cases – Requires less than or equal to $25 amount in controversy and limited to claims requiring monetary remedies.
(3) Small claims cases – Requires a claim less than or equal to $10k or $5k if a business entity, no attorneys allowed, pro se only.
Federal question
A federal question arises under federal law, the U.S. constitution or U.S. treaties. Raising a federal defense is not sufficient.
Diversity jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is a complete diversity of citizenship between litigants and the amount in controversy is greater than $75k.
Citizenship
Citizenship for a person depends upon their domicile. A domicile is where a person resides, with intent to make the state their permanent home of record.
Corporations may have two states of citizenship, determined by their principal place of business or the state in which incorporated.
Amount in controversy (AIC)
In federal courts, the AIC must be greater than $75k and alleged in good faith. A plaintiff can aggregate claims to get to $75k if making multiple claims against one defendant.
Supplemental jurisdiction (SJX)
A federal court SMJ may exercise SJX over state claims when they arise from a common nucleus of operational facts. A federal court may decline SJX over state claims when the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, it substantially predominates over the original federal claim or if the court has dismissed the claim which had original jurisdiction.
(Look for the situation where SMJ is invalid, if so, the court will not be able to exercise SJX either)
Removal to federal court
Only a defendant may remove a case to federal court. This requires that the federal court has SMJ, no defendant is domiciled in the forum state, and removal is sought within 30 days.
(A plaintiff may never remove a case to federal court – they authored their complaint and chose to bring the case in the forum they selected)
Remand to state court
A remand occurs when a case is sent from federal court to state court. This typically occurs when there is invalid SMJ. A federal court may remand a case that originally had SMJ, at the court’s discretion, once the federal claims have been decided.
State vs federal jurisdiction
State courts can try federal question cases, as long as there is no implied restriction by Congress. States may not discriminate because a case is based strictly on federal law.
In personam jurisdiction (IPJ)
IPJ is required for a court to exercise judgment, and normally falls into two categories – the traditional bases of jurisdiction and the modern bases of jurisdiction.
Traditional bases of jurisdiction
The traditional bases of jurisdiction include domicile, presence when served, consent and waiver.
Modern bases of jurisdiction
The modern bases of jurisdiction are the long arm state and constituionality.
Long arm statute
Many states have adopted long-arm statutes which allow personal jurisdiction over non-residents. While long-arm statutes can differ by state, jurisdiction under a long-arm statute must satisfy the constitutional requirements for the exercise of jurisdiction. Many states, like CA, have adopted long-arm statutes which extend personal jurisdiction to the limit of the Constitution.
(If you don’t have a traditional bases or a long arm statute, you can’t exercise jurisdiction out of the state – so expect you’ll have a long-arm statute)
Constitutionality
To satisfy the Constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum state as to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In determining whether such minimum contacts are present, courts look to three things – (1) the extent of the contacts, (2) the relatedness to the cause of action, and (3) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair.
Purposeful
The contacts were purposeful if the defendant availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws.
(Knowledge that your product is being sold in another state is not enough. You need to advertise, send goods, activate a two-way website, etc. Also, if you drive on another state’s roads, you availed yourself of the protections of their traffic laws – purposefully availed.)
Contacts
In determining minimum contacts, the court looks at whether the defendant purposefully availed himself of the forum state, and whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the forum state would be foreseeable.
Foreseeable
The contacts were foreseeable if the defendant could foresee being haled into court based on contacts in the forum state.
Relatedness
The relatedness of a contact to the controversy determines if the court will exert general or special jurisdiction.
General jurisdiction
Exists if contacts are so systematic and continuous that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum state.
Specific jurisdiction
Exists if general jurisdiction does not exist the court looks to see whether contacts relate to or give rise to the cause of action.
Fair play and substantial justice
Requires courts to consider the burden on defendant, the state’s interest, plaintiff’s relief interest, interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency and shared social policy interests.
Judgment on the pleadings
Can be motioned for when material facts are not in dispute and the pleadings reveal merit of the claim for either party. Filed only after an answer has been filed and pleadings are closed.
Venue
Venue is proper in any district where any defendant is a resident, where a substantial portion of the claim occurred. or where a substantial part of property is located. Otherwise, venue is proper in any judicial district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Venue may be transferred for party convenience or in the interest of justice, if the action could have been brought in the receiving court.