subject matter jurisdiction overview
federal question jurisdiction
exists for a claim that arises under federal law in P’s well-pleaded complaint
a defendant’s federal defense is not sufficient
diversity jurisdiction
requires showing both complete diversity and amount in controversy must exceed 75k
*excludes probate & domestic relations actions
*minimal diversity permitted only in federal interpleader act, class actions with claims over 5 million, and interstate mass torts if at least 75 natural persons died
supplemental jurisdiction
allows a federal court with SMJ to hear additional claims over which court wouldn’t independently have jurisdiction if all the claims constitute the same case or controversy (arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact)
federal question cases
diversity cases:
removal and remand
D files motion for removal in federal court to move case from state to federal court, P usually files petition for remand
*only defendants may remove
Is removal proper?
*if all requirements are met, there has been valid removal; there will not be a remand
personal jurisdiction
*lack of PJ must be raised at first opportunity, voluntarily litigating on merits is waiver (includes anything but challenging jurisdiction)
PJ refers to the court’s ability to exercise power over a particular defendant. There are 3 general types of personal jurisdiction: 1. in personam, 2, in rem, and 3. quasi-in-rem
In this case…
In personam jurisdiction: traditional bases: 1. service while voluntarily present (doesn't include passing through to attend judiciary proceeding) 2. domicile 3. consent
long-arm statute: if there is no long-arm statute in the fact pattern, assume the state goes to the full extent allowed by the constitution
1. due process (requires sufficient contacts & cannot offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)
a. minimum contacts
1. purposeful availment (of privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, invoking benefits & protections of its laws
2. foreseeability: whether foreseeable to D to be hauled into court there
3. relatedness of the claim to the
contact:
-a. specific jurisdiction: when
cause of action arise out Ds
contact with forum state (even if it’s D’s only contact with state)
-b. general jurisdiction : if D had
systematic & continuous activity in the forum state such that D is essentially at home in the forum
b. fairness (fair play and substantial justice)
-interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter
-burden on D of appearing in the case
-interest of the judicial system in efficient resolution
-shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies
venue
venue is the district in which the lawsuit should be filed
transfer of venue:
choice of law:
The Erie Doctrine
*if state laws are provided, think of Erie (only matters for diversity jurisdiction)
federal question jurisdiction:
-federal substantive and procedural law will control
diversity jurisdiction:
-state substantive, federal procedure
if don’t know whether substantive or procedural, apply Erie
if there a conflict btw federal & state law:
*jury role entirely controlled by federal law
relation back doctrine (new claim/party)
new claim:
-amendment relates back to date of original pleading even if after SOL if amendment asserts claim/defense that arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as original pleading
new party:
compulsory joinder of parties
necessary party:
*Tortfeasors facing joint and several liability are not considered necessary parties
factors if a party is necessary but would destroy diversity (indispensable):
*motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party is not required to be made in a defendant’s initial pleading. It may be raised in any pleading, in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial.
permissive joinder of parties
multiple plaintiffs:
multiple Ds: aggregate dollar amount if jointly liable
discovery
-when discovery is challenged, the court must weigh the party’s interest in discovery against the privacy interests of the party resisting discovery
-a party may not discover privileged information, party must expressly state the claim of privilege and the basis for it
–> attorney-client
–> work product
–>
The FRCP does not recognize a physician-patient privilege. Further, although there is no common law privilege covering statements made by a patient to a doctor, many states protect such communications by statute, so long as the communications were made for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment. However, the privilege is waived if the patient’s physical condition is at issue or if a case is brought in federal court and state law does not apply.
-experts not called to testify, no discovery unless exceptional circumstances, if expert called to testify then other side can discover report
jury trial
7th amendment: right to jury trial
judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict)
granted if, viewing evidence in light most favorable to other party, no reasonable person could differ as to the outcome so movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law
*motion made by either party at the close of P’s evidence or at the close of all evidence
*a judge may not consider the credibility of witnesses or evaluate the weight of evidence
*can be made for any claim or defense
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JNOV)
after the jury delivers a verdict, motion to override the jury’s verdict
can only renew this motion if was made earlier (directed verdict), same standard
*no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment
appeals
there must be a final judgment
interlocutory appeal is limited to
claim preclusion
*Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, whether claims arise from the same transaction or series thereof depends on whether the facts (1) are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, (2) form a convenient trial unit, and (3) conform to the parties’ expectations when treated as a unit.
issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)
*However, trial courts have broad discretion to determine when issue preclusion should apply. If a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action, a trial judge may not allow use of offensive collateral estoppel.
intervention
intervention as of right: claim interest in subject matter that may be compromised by disposition of pending action
permissive intervention: may be allowed when common question of law or fact
*no supplemental jurisdiction for diversity case, must satisfy complete diversity & AIC
Rule: (1) the nonparty has an interest in the subject matter of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may impair the nonparty’s interests; and (3) the nonparty’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. The burden is on the party seeking to intervene.
interpleader
*property owner forcing all claimants into single lawsuit
persons with claims that may expose P to multiple liability may be joined as Ds even though claims lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical, or when P denies liability
permissive joinder of claims
party may join independent or alternative claims of whatever nature against opposing party
compulsory & permissive counterclaims
*pleaded in D’s answer
compulsory if at time of service it arises out of same transaction/occurrence as claim to which it responds
permissive counterclaim doesn’t arise out of same transaction/occurrence
cross-claim
claim against co-party may be asserted if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence of original action or counterclaim (never compulsory)
Comes in under supplemental jurisdiction.
impleader
D (third party P) brings into suit someone (third party D) who is/may be liable to D for all or part of P’s claim against him
diversity: comes within supplemental jurisdiction (citizenship & AIC doesn’t matter)
SMJ does not extend to claims by original P against impleaded third-party D (need complete diversity or federal question)
*within 14 days of serving answer