SMJ Week #3 Flashcards

Question

Sua sponte

Answer 1

Latin for "of one's own accord; voluntarily." Used to indicate that a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion without prompting or suggestion from either party.

Answer 2

A test in CIVIL PROCEDURE is designed to establish that a complaint has met the minimum amount in controversy required for a court to have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Answer 3

1. to promote the uniformity of federal law 2. to encourage judicial expertise in interpreting federal law 3. to protect against possible state court hostility to claims arising under federal law

Answer 4

prohibit someone from performing (a particular action) bu issuing an injunction

Answer 5

A declaratory judgment is a binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before the court. Typically, a party will first send a cease and desist letter prior to seeking a declaratory judgment from a court.

Answer 6

AFA Tours v Whitchurch - Before dismissing a federal diversity suit on the grounds of insufficient amount in controversy, a court must allow the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to show that the claim amount was made in good faith.

Answer 7

Louisville v Mottley - For a suit to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, giving a federal court jurisdiction to hear the case, a plaintiff must allege a cause of action based upon those laws or that Constitution.

Answer 8

Harms v Eliscu - An action arises under the Copyright Act and is thus a federal question only when the complaint is for a remedy expressly granted by the Act.

Answer 9

Dow v Thompson - Federal jurisdiction may be proper in instances where there is a federal issue in a state cause of action, or when the suit arises under a federal law that creates a cause of action.

Answer 10

Grable v Darue - A federal court may have jurisdiction over a state cause of action, if the action has a substantial federal component in actual controversy, and federal jurisdiction would not disrupt the balance of labor between state and federal courts.

Answer 11

Gunn v Minton - A state court’s resolution of a hypothetical question of patent law is not substantial enough to mandate federal review.

Answer 12

United Mine v Gibbs - A federal court can exercise pendent jurisdiction over state and federal claims if the federal and state claims are the type that would be expected to be heard at a single hearing and are “derive[d] from a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Answer 13

Strawberry v Curtiss - All defendants must be completely diverse from all plaintiffs in order to obtain federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Answer 14

Osborn v Bank US - Federal courts have original jurisdiction over any matter that involves a federal question.

Answer 15

Shoshone v Rutter - For purposes of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, a suit to enforce a state-law right that originates in federal law does not arise under the Constitution or federal law.

Answer 16

Well Pleaded Complaints i. From Mottley, the court is required to consider not what the P has pleaded but what P needed to plead to state their cause of action. ii. This is to prevent manipulation by Ps; if Ps could make a federal case out of a state law clam by including unnecessary references to federal law in their complaints, arising-under jurisdiction could be created by simply including peripheral or even irrelevant references to federal issues in the complaint. iii. By asking not what is in the complaint, but what has to be, the court can limit the opportunity to manipulate the federal courts' jurisdiction. • In Mottley, their claim was a breach of contract claim and did not "arise under" federal law, as interpreted by 28 USC 1331. • A federal law must include a private right of action (either implicit or explicit) in order for a party to bring suit in federal court.

Answer 17

To determine whether an action arises under federal law, look to the law that creates the cause of action (the “Creation Test”). If the cause of action is created by federal law (e.g., Congress passes a statute giving you this cause of action) it “arises under” federal law. Holmes' "Creation" Test: The "vast majority" of cases that come within this grant of jurisdiction are covered by Justice Holmes' statement that a "`suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.

Answer 18

Essential Federal Ingredient Test (from Smith v. Kansas City Title, refined by Grable) i. Is there an essential federal ingredient embedded in an otherwise nonfederal claim? ii. Is the federal ingredient actually disputed in the context of the case? iii. Is the federal ingredient important in the sense that it is particularly appropriate for resolution in a federal court? (federal interest?) iv. Would treating the claim as "arising under" upset the congressionally mandated allocation of jurisdiction between state and federal courts? • Broadens the scope of 28 USC 1331 jurisdiction and upsets the totality of the "creation test." (from American Well Works) • Few cases are able to satisfy these requirements. • Holding from Grable: a claim that doesn't follow the "creation test" can be tried in federal court if the court decides that the state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Answer 19

Well-pleaded Complaint Rule - A rule in civil procedure stating that, in order for federal question jurisdiction to be granted, a plaintiff's "well-pleaded complaint" must state that the defendant directly violated some provision of the Constitution or federal law.

Answer 20

Grable, 545 U. S., at 314. That is, federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. Grable (Importance) Test: Grable, “the question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?” Grable involved a pure issue of law, and deciding it would establish a federal principle (does a federal statute, 26 U.S.C. § 6335, require personal service? Quiet title claim). • federal interest but very fact-bound and situation-specific, deciding would create no federal principle o In the interpreted Act, Congress conferred federal jurisdiction for different parts, but NOT this one. Negative inference that Congress did not intend to confer jurisdiction.  Interest must be substantial to the federal system, not just the parties of the case. Gunn, Civil Procedure Outline 1  Implication of a very important federal policy can confer federal question jurisdiction even in a purely state law claim. Smith, • Plaintiff sought to enjoin Defendant bank from purchasing bonds issued by Act of Congress claiming that the Act was unconstitutional – cause of action was that under state law, bank could not purchase illegal bonds • Two federal implications of state law claim: (1) Missouri might declare Act unconstitutional, (2) If each state can declare the bonds illegal, U.S. borrowing costs go up, taxation increases – implications have national reach • interpretation of federal act that would have implications only in Kentucky not sufficiently important to confer federal question jurisdiction • See also Merrell Dow, negligence suit alleging failure to comply with drug labeling requirements under federal statute not sufficiently substantial to confer federal-question jurisdiction. The court found convincing that Congress had created no federal remedy for violation of the statute, and concluded it was “tantamount to a congressional conclusion that the presence of a claimed violation of the statute as an element of a state cause of action is insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer federal-question jurisdiction.”

Answer 21

Grable - That is, federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Answer 22

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between— (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

Answer 23

(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1)a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of— (A)every State and foreign state of which the insured is a citizen; (B)every State and foreign state by which the insurer has been incorporated; and (C)the State or foreign state where the insurer has its principal place of business; and (2)the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent.

Answer 24

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Answer 25

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (b) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent, plant variety protection or trademark laws.

Answer 26

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. (b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332. (c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. (d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.

Answer 27

1. Citizens of different states 2. Citizen of state v Foreigner (watch for permanent residents) 3. Citizens of different states in which foreigners are additional parties. 4. Foreign country sues U.S. citizen

SMJ Week #3 Flashcards

(51 cards)