Civil Procedure

Goldsmith 2002

I.Subject Matter Jurisdiction: the power of a court to hear certain kinds of cases

A.Introduction

  1. SMJ legitimizes the state’s police power to do violence to people’s lives
  2. Definitions
  3. Limited Jurisdiction
  4. Federal courts
  5. Party must make an affirmative showing that the feds have jurisdiction
  6. General Jurisdiction
  7. State courts
  8. Presumption of jurisdiction – lack of jurisdiction is an affirmative defense
  9. Original Jurisdiction – first instance; you hear it first
  10. Appellate Jurisdiction – only hear it on review of other court
  11. Exclusive Jurisdiction – only can be brought in federal court (or in state court)
  12. Concurrent Jurisdiction – can be brought in either court
  13. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
  14. Limited to an affirmative statutory authorization from congress and consistency with Article III section two
  15. Marbury v. Madison

(a)There was statutory authorization, but no consistency with Article III (2); no jurisdiction

(b)Only question: does SC have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus?

  • No Article III authorization
  • Congress cannot expand Article III

(c)SC can strike down laws that violate the constitution

(d)Every court has jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction

(e)Marshall gets Jefferson’s goat while the gettin’ is good

  1. Article III
  2. Section Two – the nine headed gorgon of SMJ

(a)Federal Question Jurisdiction (treaties, laws, etc)

(b)All cases involving ambassadors

(c)Admiralty and Maritime Law

(d)Cases in which the United States is a party

(e)Controversies between two or more states

(f)Controversies between a state and a non-resident of that state

(g)Between citizens of different states

(h)Between citizens of the same state claiming land in different states

(i)Between a state or its citizens and foreign states, or their citizens

  1. SC has original jurisdiction for (b), and all cases in which a state is a party; appellate jurisdiction for all others
  2. Lower feds now have original jurisdiction for all the others, when there is a statutory basis
  1. Statutory Authorization
  2. Read from Article III language “shall extend”
  3. Congress has to extend it
  4. Subject matter defects can be brought at any time during the case (even after the verdict BUT not after the final appeal)
  5. Capron v. Van Noorden

(a)P appeals decision for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after losing case that he brought to the circuit court himself

(b)SC voids first decision; P gets to try case again

  1. Parties themselves cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent or waiver
  2. Rule 12 (h) 3 – “whenever it appears … that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”

(a)Cannot be waived if omitted

(b)Objections to personal venue, improper venue, process, service of process, can be waived if omitted, but not for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter

B.Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

  1. Basis
  2. Constitutional – Article III, Section 2 “judicial power shall extend to controversies between citizens between different states”
  3. Statutory – 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a): citizens of different states, citizen of a state and citizen of a foreign state, the former with additional parties, a foreign state as a plaintiff and citizens of a state or different states
  4. Complete Diversity – a statutory limitation
  5. Statute interpreted to dictate that all parties on one side of the v. must be diverse with all parties on the other side
  6. If there are aliens on both sides, there is no diversity, even if there is a state citizen on only one side – 1332 (a) 2
  7. BUT you can have an alien on each side if there is also a state citizen on each side, each from a different state – 1332 (a) 3
  8. Citizenship
  9. “Citizen” in 1332 (a) 1 means that you have to be a U.S. citizen with a domicile in the state in which you claim citizenship
  10. “Citizen in 1332 (a) 2 contains only a domicile requirement
  11. Mas v. Perry

(a)Landlord through the looking glass; make your perfunctory “Sliver” joke here.

(b)Court rejects old common law rule – woman does not lose her U.S. citizenship by marrying an alien, so she should not lose her citizenship for diversity purposes; her domicile reverts to the last domicile she held.

(c)Court rules there is diversity jurisdiction; otherwise there would be no alien diversity jurisdiction either; no way to sue in fed courts

  1. “An alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such an alien is domiciled”

(a)Marie Chevalier moves to the U.S. and then sues Francois Mitterand

  • This is passes 1332 (a) 2
  • However, it does NOT pass Article III because it states that you can’t have suits between foreigners in U.S. fed courts

(b)Marie Chevalier moves to CA and sues Jerry Lewis in 9th circuit

  • This does not pass 1332 (a) 2 because for the purposes of that section, Chevalier is a citizen of CA
  • It would pass Article III
  1. Corporations
  2. 1332 (c) 1
  3. Corporations are citizens of their place of incorporation and principle place of business

(a)Dominant rule: place of headquarters is the principle place of business

  1. Amount in controversy
  2. 1332 (b) – $75,000 without regard to counterclaims, costs
  3. A.F.A Tours v. Whitechurch
  4. Good faith damage calculations are taken as true unless there is a reasonable certainty that they are in bad faith
  5. You only dismiss if there is a legal certainty that the P can’t get the damages that bastard is asking for

(a)Seems against the concept of limited jurisdiction

(b)However, alternative would be to have a trial on the merits before a trial on the merits

  1. Damages must be affirmatively stated, calculated
  2. Each plaintiff must allege $75,000 against each defendant UNLESS aggregation applies

(a)Aggregation is permitted if there is a joint or undivided claim

(b)Single plaintiffs can aggregate claims against single defendants

C.Federal Question Jurisdiction

  1. There must be a federal ingredient (Osborn) within a well pleaded complaint (Mottley)
  2. 28 U.S.C. 1331 – “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
  3. Not conferred on courts until 1875
  4. Applies to both “federal question” jurisdiction and “arising under” jurisdiction
  5. Osborn v. Bank of United States
  6. Ohio state auditor takes cash from Bank, Bank wants cash back post haste.
  7. Ohio says no federal jurisdiction, Court disagrees
  8. Statutory Authorization: Congressional Act chartering bank authorizes it “to sue or be sued” in any Circuit Court
  9. Article III authorization – § 2: “all cases … arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made”

(a)Marshall states that if there is some “federal ingredient” then Article III is satisfied.

(b)“The Act itself is the first ingredient in the case”

(c)National Bank is created by congress, question is of a federal act

(d)If there is a federal ingredient, there is federal question jurisdiction

  1. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley
  2. In exchange for non-suit, RR gives P free RR passes for life. Act of Congress passed forbidding free RR passes; RR defaults.
  3. P claims fed question jurisdiction because “if the law is to be construed as prohibiting such passes, it is in conflict with 5th Amendment, depriving of property without due process of law.”
  4. SC raises jurisdiction issue sua sponte – federal question issue is only a response to a potential defense, not integral to claim itself.
  5. Claim is a simple contract issue
  6. It is not enough that the anticipated response to the complaint would contain a federal question, the complaint itself must contain “federal ingredient.”
  7. Limits scope of § 1331 to federal issues found within “a well pleaded complaint.”
  8. Interpretation of 1331 narrows the scope from what Article III itself could allow
  9. Declaratory Judgment
  10. The feds can declare your rights – 28 U.S.C 2201, 2202
  11. BUT you can’t use declaratory judgment to circumvent 1331 – If it could be pleaded as a non-federal adversarial claim, then it must be.

D.Joinder

  1. Four ways to join claims
  2. Compulsory Counterclaim – Rule 13 (a)
  3. Mr. Tanner v. Alf for pooping on lawn.

(a)If Alf has a counterclaim that arises out of the action (ungracious battery for poop gift) then he has to bring it, or it is lost forever more.

(b)Exception: if it requires the presence of parties over whom the court cannot get personal jurisdiction

  1. Permissive Counterclaim – Rule 13 (b)
  2. Alf counterclaims Tanner for damages relating to the execution of the frozen pee disk

(a)Though it does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, it may be brought

(b)Joinder is optional, Alf can bring the pee disk claim later

  1. Cross-claim against co-party – Rule 13 (g) (same side of the v)
  2. Must arise out of transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or a counterclaim (or relating to property in the original action)
  3. Party against whom it is asserted may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of the claim asserted
  4. Mr Tanner sues Gordon Schumway and Mr. Roper for pooping on the lawn; Gordon Schumway can cross-claim Mr. Roper for smearing the poop on his nose, but not for executing the frozen pee disk a week earlier.
  5. Rule 18 (a) – a party seeking relief from an opposing party may join with his original claim any additional claims he has against that opposing party
  6. BUT court can sever the issues and have separate trials if it wishes – Rule 42 (b)
  7. Mr. Tanner sues Gordon Schumway for pooping on the lawn and executing the frozen pee disk.

(a)There may be jurisdictional issues here, see below. (Court must have jurisdiction for pooping and peeing if one does not arise from the other)

(b)The court can sever the issues into two separate trials if it finds adjudicating both poop and pee unwieldy

  1. 5 ways to join parties
  2. Mandatory Joinder – Rule 19
  3. These parties have to be joined; if not feasible court determines whether or it is worth going on living (or adjudicating)
  4. 3 questions

(a)Availability – 19 (a)

  • Is the party available?

(b)Necessity – 19 (a)

  • Can complete relief be awarded without Jerry Mathers?
  • Does Jerry Mathers claim an interest relating to the action?
  • Is the interest related to the subject matter such that without Jerry Mathers one cannot resolve the suit?

(c)Indispensability – 19 (b)

  • The Beave is indispensable if when he is not joined, the party must be dismissed. Without the Beave, there is no party.

To what extent a judgment rendered in the Beave’s absence might be prejudicial to the persons already parties?

Extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, prejudice can be avoided?

Whether a judgment rendered in the Beave’s absence will be adequate?

Whether the  will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder?

  1. If (a) and (b) are satisfied, then the party will be joined. If (c) is satisfied, but not (a), then the court cannot go on adjudicating.
  1. Permissive Joinder – Rule 20 (a)
  2. Plaintiffs can join together or join multiple defendants so long as the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and involve a common question of law or fact.
  3. 20 (b) says that the court can break it up into separate trials to prevent delay or prejudice.
  4. The entire What’s Happening gang can sue Re-Run for his insufferable behavior
  5. Interpleader Actions – Rule 22
  6. Prevents Double or Multiple Liability
  7. Class Actions – Rule 23
  8. Used when joinder is impossible for reasons of personal jurisdiction, venue, and when there is a limited pot, etc., see below
  9. Must be a common issue of law, as well as other requirements
  10. Intervening Parties – Rule 24
  11. By Right

(a)Statute says so, or practical matters dictate

  1. Permissive

(a)Statute says so conditionally, or there is a common question of law or fact; court has discretion

  1. One way to do both
  2. Impleading a Third Party – Rule 14
  3. Mr. Roper sues Gordon Schumway; Gordo impleads Re-Run
  4. This is both a new party AND a new claim
  5. Has to pass the “arising out of the same transaction or occurrence” test

(a)Gordo cannot claim innocence for eating Roper’s goldfish, pointing to Re-Run as the culprit. This would necessitate separate trials

(b)Gordo can claim that Re-Run owes him contribution for eating half the goldfish – Re-Run must be Gordo’s target, not Mr. Roper’s.

  1. Both P and D can implead

(a)Defendant brings a new party – 14 (a)

(b)In the event of a counterclaim, Plaintiff can implead – 14 (b)

  1. Can combine with Rule 18 – once one claim passes the “arising out of” test, you can add others.

E.Supplemental Jurisdiction

  1. When courts can use joinder rules even though they do not have jurisdiction for all of the claims
  2. Pendent and Ancillary Jurisdiction
  3. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
  4. Rule 18 Joinder – Plaintiff is combining claims
  5. One claim is a federal question; the other is not (and there isn’t diversity)
  6. Court rules that Article III grants jurisdiction over entire “cases” not just issues

(a)So long as claims arise out of the same “common nucleus of operative fact,” only one of them must be a federal claim

  1. Court ignores the statutory question – assumes that the relevant statute (Labor Management Relations Act? Rule 18?) allows jurisdiction.
  2. Gibbs Test

(a)Does the state claim share the same “common nucleus of operative facts” with the federal claim?

(b)In applying discretion, does it make sense to exercise jurisdiction?

  • Has (will) the federal claim been dismissed?
  • Are the claims very tightly connected?
  • Will the jury be confused?
  • Is this really a state law claim dressed up like a federal jezebel?
  1. Aldinger v. Howard
  2. 42 U.S.C. 1983 (civil rights act) only allows P to sue individuals, not counties
  3. P brings suit against individual under 1983, tried to join county under Rule 20

(a)Article III authorizes the joinder, as both claims arise from the same nucleus

(b)However, No Statutory Authorization

  • You look at the statute that covers the federal claim – 1983

It explicitly denies jurisdiction

Therefore, no statutory authorization

  • The presumption is that it is included unless congress explicitly excludes it
  1. Therefore, pendent jurisdiction cannot be applied: two separate trials
  1. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
  2. In a diversity case, when a D impleads another D, if there is not complete diversity, there is no federal jurisdiction
  3. Diversity case; D impleads a nefarious individual from the same state as P. This nefarious bastard has ruined diversity
  4. This cannot be allowed, unauthorized by 1332, though it is fine with Article III (common nucleus) – we know this because it is a rule 14 impleader.
  5. Finley v. United States
  6. Finley sues U.S. under FTCA, seeks to join state law claims against other defendants (that do not fall under diversity)
  7. Article III is satisfied (common nucleus exists)
  8. No statutory authorization

(a)Instead of looking to see if the statute explicitly denies jurisdiction, the court dictates that we look to see if the statute explicitly includes it

(b)This is overruled by 1367

  1. Supplemental Jurisdiction puts an end to the crap, creates new crap
  2. 28 U.S.C § 1367 – Presumptively supplemental jurisdiction whenever Article III allows it, except that you cannot defeat complete diversity
  3. 1367 (a): if federal question or other non-diversity head is the basis for smj over the main claim, then there is supplemental jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution
  4. 1367 (b): if diversity jurisdiction is the basis for smj, then there is supplemental jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution EXCEPT

(a)If the joinder is made by the Plaintiff under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 (and there is no diversity between the new party and the P)

(b)Or if discretion dictates not joining

  • Novel or complex issue of state law
  • State claim substantially predominates over fed claim
  • Fed claims have been dismissed
  • Other compelling reasons

(c)Question: Does “plaintiff” include third party plaintiffs? All sources lead to No, but there is controversy

  1. Executive Software v. District Court
  2. District Court gets the mandamus smack down for using 1367 (c) 4 too lightly
  3. You must give reason for using the all powerful 1367 (c) 4

F.Federal Removal Jurisdiction

  1. Basic Intuition: D can remove a case to federal court if it could have been tried there to begin with
  2. Governed by 1441
  3. 4 basic rules
  4. Only Ds can remove, and all the Ds must agree to a removal for a claim under 1441 (a)
  5. Removal is only appropriate if the case could have been brought in federal court in the first place
  6. 1441 (b): if one of the Ds was a resident of the state in which the action was brought, you can’t remove
  7. 1441 (c): welcome to irrelevance
  8. Separate and independent non-removable claims joined with removable ones – language says that feds can either determine all issues, or remand the chaff.
  9. In conflict with 1367, Article III

(a)If the claims are really independent, then 1441 (c) violates Article III – no “common nucleus”

(b)If the claims are not independent, then 1367 applies in combination with 1441 (a)

  1. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster

(a)District court believes the issue to be a 1441 (c) removal. This is not true; questionable as to whether any valid 1441 (c) cases exist

(b)It is in fact a 1367, 1441 (a) issue. However, all the D’s do not agree to remove, so it would not have survived under this reasoning either.

  1. Mr. Tanner can make sure that his suit stays in state court by suing in state court and joining it with an unrelated pee disk claim under Rule 18.

G.Appellate Jurisdiction

  1. Appeals from a federal trial court to an appeals court must have a statutory basis and be consistent with the Constitution
  2. Statutory basis – 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292
  3. 1291 – allows appeals of final judgments (Final Judgment Rule)
  4. 1292 – exceptions to 1291 (interlocutory judgments)

(a)Only for injunctions, important issues

(b)Both trial judge and appellate judge have to agree that immediate appeal is necessary

  1. 1651 (a) – writ of mandamus

(a)An order by one court to make another court perform a non-discretionary law

(b)Only used for egregious mistakes such that judge is violating the rule of law

(c)Slaps your fat ass with a fat writ

  1. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
  2. Whole new set of rules that accompany an appeal
  3. Standard of Review
  4. Facts – clearly erroneous (rule 52 (a))
  5. Legal Issues – de novo
  6. 5 necessities for reversal on appeal

(a)Record – error you allege must be somewhere in the record

(b)Objection – must have been made at trial

  • Unless there was a plain error
  • If the error was so obvious, egregious, and important, sometimes it will be reviewed in the absence of objection

(c)Assertion – issue must have been asserted on appeal