Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction Flashcards
(33 cards)
Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. This means they are limited in the type of cases they are allowed to hear.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. This means they are limited in the type of cases they are allowed to hear. In most cases, a federal court may properly exercise jurisdiction in diversity actions and claims involving a federal question. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, even on appeal
Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction requires that 1) every plaintiff be completely diverse from every defendant AND 2) the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The rationale for creating diversity jurisdiction is to afford an alternative forum to out of state litigants who might be victims of local prejudice.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Complete Diversity
Complete diversity means that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. If any defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, complete diversity does NOT exist. In deciding diversity jurisdiction, courts look at the citizenship of the parties at the time the complaint was filed.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Complete Diversity - Domicile of an Individual
1) Domicile of an Individual: For diversity purposes, the citizenship of a person is based on domicile – the place where the person lives with the intent to remain. Domicile is a matter of intent. In order to change domicile, the person must be: 1) physically present in the new state AND 2) have the intent to permanently remain there. A person can only have one domicile at a time.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Complete Diversity - Corporations
2) Corporations: As for a corporation, it is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it has been incorporated and the one place where it has its principal place of business. Principal place of business refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities i.e. its nerve center, which will typically be found at its corporate headquarters.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Complete Diversity - Alienage Jurisdiction
3) Alienage Jurisdiction: Under the complete diversity requirement of alienage jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction does not encompass suits by foreign plaintiffs against foreign defendants. This exclusion extends to cases involving an alien on one side and an alien plus a U.S. Citizen on the other.
1) In sum, where there are foreigners on both sides, there must be US citizens on both sides as well. Diversity is lacking when there is an alien on side and a US citizen and an alien on the other.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Amount in Controversy
In addition to complete diversity, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if made in good faith.
ESSAY TIP
ESSAY TIP: Issues concerning the amount in controversy are heavily tested.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Amount in Controversy - The Legal Certainty Test
The amount in controversy is determined by what is claimed in the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff’s good faith allegations will suffice UNLESS it appears to a legal certainty that the jurisdictional amount cannot be recovered. This is known as the legal certainty test. Thus, there need only be some legal possibility that the plaintiff will recover in excess of $75,000.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Amount in Controversy - No Retroactive Application
Subject matter jurisdiction is NOT retroactively defeated by the act that judgment is ultimately entered for less than the jurisdictional amount. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff’s actual recovery is less than $75,000 does NOT retroactively affect the jurisdiction of the court. The rationale is if the existence of subject matter jurisdiction were to depend on the amount the plaintiff ultimately recovers, a number of cases would be thrown out after a lengthy trial.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Amount in Controversy - Value of an Injunction
When the plaintiff seeks an injunction, the plaintiff may add the value of the injunction to her claim to satisfy the amount in controversy. Most courts calculate the amount of the injunction by determining the value to the plaintiff. Other courts look at the cost to the defendant.
ESSAY TIP
ESSAY TIP: The examiners often test on whether the value of an injunction meets the jurisdiction amount.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Amount in Controversy - Aggregation of Claims
In certain situations, a plaintiff may aggregate (add together) multiple claims to satisfy the amount in controversy. Thus, for purposes of meeting the jurisdictional amount a plaintiff may aggregate all the claims she has against the same defendant.
1) When a plaintiff sues multiple defendants, each each claim against each defendant must satisfy the jurisdictional amount. Aggregation is permitted only if the defendants are jointly liable.
Diversity Jurisdiction - Amount in Controversy - Defendant’s Counterclaim May NOT be Added
A defendant’s counterclaim cannot be combined with the plaintiff’s cause of action to reach the jurisdictional amount.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hearsay any case arising under federal law or the US constitution. The federal claim must appear on the fact of the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint.
1) Federal question raised by the defendant’s answer or in a counterclaim are irrelevant. Moreover, the plaintiff’s anticipation of a defense based on federal law is NOT sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.
2) When federal question jurisdiction exists, the parties’ citizenship and the amount in controversy are irrelevant. Thus, a plaintiff from California can sue a defendant from California in federal court for $35,000 for violation of federal law.
3) Federal Preemption: When Congress has entirely preempted state law on a matter, the plaintiff may not elude federal jurisdiction by electing not to plead the federal claim. Thus, if federal law “completely preempts” state law, the case may be removed by the defendant on federal question grounds because the only possible claim is federal.
ESSAY TIP
ESSAY TIP: Unless the state claim is entirely preempted by federal law, only focus on the plaintiff’s complaint in attempting to determine whether a federal question is present. A defendant may NOT remove the case to federal court by alleging a federal defense.
ESSAY TIP
A federal court must have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Flowchart
1) Federal Question: any claim under federal law
2) Diversity: complete diversity AND amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 – the legal certainty test
1) Complete Diversity
1) Person – place of domicile
2) Corporation: state of corporation and principal place of business
3) No diversity if aliens on both sides without US constitution on both sides
2) Amount in Controversy – must exceed $75,000 – the legal certainty test
1) Value of the injunction
2) Aggregation of claims
3) No retroactive application
California Subject Matter Jurisdiction
California state superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction. This means they can hear pretty much any case. California classifies cases in three ways: 1) unlimited 2) limited AND 3) small claims. In an unlimited civil case, the amount in controversy must exceed $25,000. In a limited civil case, the amount in controversy must be $25,000 or less. And for small claims, the amount in controversy varies but is generally $10,000 or less.
1) If the defendant files a cross-complaint (a claim against the plaintiff) in a limited civil case that exceeds $25,000, the case will be reclassified as an unlimited civil case.
1) Unlimited Civil Case: the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000
2) Limited Civil Case: the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less
3) Small Claims: the amount in controversy is generally $10,000 or less
Supplemental Jurisdiction
When a federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a “related” claim that would NOT independently satisfy subject matter jurisdiction if it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the claim that invoked subject matter jurisdiction. Essentially, the supplemental claim must be part of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim. The rationale for supplemental jurisdiction is to promote judicial economy and the efficient administration of justice by having all related claims decided in one proceeding.
1) The terms “common nucleus of operative fact” and “same transaction or occurrence” can be used interchangeably.
Supplemental Jurisdiction - Federal Question Cases
Federal Question Cases: When a plaintiff asserts both a federal claim and state law claim, a federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if the two claims are related and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one proceeding.
Supplemental Jurisdiction - Diversity Cases
In diversity cases, a claim that does not meet the amount in controversy requirement may invoke supplemental jurisdiction if it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact. Keep in mind that the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a claim that would defeat the complete diversity requirement.
Supplemental Jurisdiction - Diversity Cases
For example, a driver sued a defendant for negligence claiming $100,000 worth of damages from a car accident. The driver is from California and the defendant is a resident of Nevada. After the case is filed, the passenger of the driver’s car wishes to assert a claim against the defendant for $20,000 for injuries suffered in the accident. The passenger is a resident of Pennsylvanie. In this case, the passenger’s claim does not satisfy the subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a federal question and does not independently meet the amount in controversy. However, the passenger’s claim invokes supplemental jurisdiction because it is part of the same transaction or occurrence.