federal civil procedure essay Flashcards
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction / question asks you to evaluate subject matter jurisdiction — how to set up the essay rule statements
A federal court has jurisdiction to hear two types of cases: federal question jurisdiction cases, and diversity jurisdiction cases.
Federal question jurisdiction exists where the plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law. The complaint must be “well-pleaded,” meaning the action is to enforce a federal right, not merely raises a federal issue. Federal question jurisdiction does not exist where the only federal question is located in a defndant’s answer, counter claim, or cross claim or where the complaint only alleges federal issues in anticipation of a defense.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where there is complete diversity among the parties such that every plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than every defendant. Citizenship of an individual is determeined by the state in which they are domiciled, which is is the permanent home in which she intends to remain. A corporation is a citizen in any state in which the corporation has its principal place of business or any state in which it is incorporated. A new domicile may be established by physical presence in the new place with intent to rmain in that place.
Diversity jurisdiction also requires the plaintiff to meet an amount in controversy requirement of over $75,000. This must be pleaded in good faith in the complaint and excludes interests and costs.
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction for an OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT – question asks you to evaluate personal jurisdiction - how to set up essay rule statements
A federal court has personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant if there is a state statute authorizing personal jurisdiction over him and such jurisdiction is constitutional.
Thus, the first issue is to ascertain whether the court has Virginia stauttory jurisdiction over the defendant in accordance.
[virginia statutory jurisidction analysis - for out of state Ds it will likely be the long-arm statute]
Second, in addition to having statutory authorization to exercise personal jurisdiction, the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction must not violate due process.
First, the court must determine whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts witht eh forum state such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Due process also requires notice to the defendant of the suit pending against him.
The Defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum must show that the defendant purposely availed himself to the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, which provokes the benefits and protections of its laws. In this way, it must be foreseeable to the defednant (he should anticipate) that his activities may cause him to be haled into court in the forum state.
[minimum contacts]
Second, after minimum contacts is established, the court must find that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. the court will tkae into account the parties’ interests and the state’s interest.
[fairness and reasonableness analysis … might look similar to the min contacts/foreseeability analysis]
Finally, notice must be provided to the defendant in a way that is constitutional and comports with Rule 4, the federal notice rule. Due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under the circumstances, and rule four requires service of process to be done in several different ways.
venue rules for essay question
Venue in civil actions in federal courts is proper in several different locations.
First, venue is proper in a judicial district in which all of the defendants reside. An individual “resides” in the federal district where she is domiciled. A corporation “resides” in all districts where it is subject to PJ for the case at hand.
Second, if all the defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in any district within that state.
Third, venue is proper in a district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated
Fourth, if there is no district that satisfies the preceding options, venue may be proper in any district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.
