5 types of federal jurisdiction
- “Arising Under”
- Special Jurisdictional Statutes
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal vs. State; jurisdiction over the type of claim
Diversity jurisdiction requires
that there is diversity, an amount over $75,000 in controversy, and that diversity is complete.
when there are citizens of different states or of a state and foreign nation. Permanent resident aliens are treated as citizens.
Diversity is complete
when there no plaintiffs from same state as any defendant.
“Arising” under is
a claim arising under U.S. Constitution, Statutes or treaties. The two test for “arising under” are ingredients test and creation test.
The creation test is
when federal law creates the claim
The ingredient test is when
a substantial ingredient of the claim is federal in nature. It is more liberal and general, and would allow more “arising under” claims.
In arising under jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim must
arise out of federal law. Anticipation of federal defense is not enough. Even the the us of a federal law in avoidance of defense is not enough.
Some examples of special jurisdictional statutes are
when the U.S. is a party, sovereign immunities act, bankruptcy, and exclusive statutes.
purpose to allow closely related, non-jurisdictional claims to be litigated together with a jurisdictional claim that is in federal court. i.e. non-jurisdictional claims by plaintiff, as well as counterclaims, cross-claims
The test of supplemental jurisdiction is
The district court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim if it is so related that they form part of the same case or controversy.
The court has discretion in supplemental jurisdiction when
there is a novel state question, the non-jurisdictional claim dominates, or the jurisdictional claim is dismissed.
Removal jurisdiction is
when defendant is allowed to take the case from state court or federal court because the federal court has original jurisdiction. But, if diversity is the sole basis of jurisdiction, the case cannot be removed if there is a resident defendant (local citizen)
The procedure for removal is
- Defendant files a notice of removal and all defendant must join.
- within 30 days after receipt of pleading or notice
- Notice effects removal. The state court proceeds no further.
- Court may order filing of copy of state proceedings.
Under removal jurisdiction, a court can remand
any time before judgment, on motion of a party or by its own motion. The remand is not reviewable by appellate court.
The time limit on removal for diversity actions
is one year. The may be problems if one party settles, but settlement is not finalized to prevent removal. Procedural defects must raised by defendant’s motion within 30 days or waived.
In personam jurisdiction is
which court has the power to adjudicate a person. Or which state or federal court in what state.
In personam jurisdiction can be satisfied
- tag jurisdiction
- long arm statutes and due process
- forum selection clause
- nationwide service
- In rem jurisdiction
is the service of process on a person inside the territory of the forum state. Suffices without minimum contacts fairness analysis.
Exceptions to tag jurisdiction are
if the person is in the territorial limits due to fraudulent enticement or by subpoena.
Consent for in personam jurisdiction is when
a person has consented, expressly or impliedly to jurisdiction.
An example of implied consent for in personam jurisdiction is
nonresident motorist statutes.
Express consent would be
if you waived jurisdiction by appearing and defending the lawsuit without a special appearance.
A special appearance is
when you appear to make a motion to dismiss. Defendant may need to make motion before litigating merits. This is not a waiver is done under the applicable rules. but forecloses collateral attack.
A collateral attack
is when the defendant does not appear, then attacks the jurisdiction is his home state when there is action on the default judgment.
A collateral attack is risky because
it forecloses the defendant offering any judgment on the merits.
Federal 12(b) motion
is analogous to a special appearance but need not be first, but there is a time limit.
Forum selection clauses are
clauses in contracts that pick the jurisdiction and venue. Federal courts usually enforce forum selection clauses.
Nationwide service is
federal statutes that erase state borders with respect to service of process and create nationwide service. i.e. a securities offering
Long arm jurisdiction complies with due process if
defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state so that the suit is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
For in personam jurisdiction, state long arm statutes must
comply with due process and state law.
A person has sufficient contacts if
there is specific or general jurisdiction, have availed himself of the states benefits and protections, and can reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there.
A corporation is a citizen
where it is incorporated and where it has it’s principle place of business. The nerve center will typically be found at a corporation’s headquarters.
An individual is a citizen
is his domicile, his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment (not necessarily residence)
Specific jurisdiction is
when the claim and contacts are related. It requires less contacts.
General jurisdiction is
when the claims and contacts are not related. It requires systematic and continuous contacts such that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum state.
An individual is essentially at home
in the individuals domicile.
A corporation is essentially at home
where the corporation is incorporated and where it has it’s principle place of business.
In rem jurisdiction
when a “thing” is within the power of the court and the court has the right to adjudicate over it. Most commonly land. However things cannot be seized to make defendant appear if defendant has no other contacts and case is not about the thing.
Texas Long Arm Statutes
Nonresident motorist and general long arm- covers anyone doing business and has minimum contacts and reaches to the limits of due process.