Civil Procedure Fall 2015 Outline 2 I. THREE 2 II. 2 III. 3 IV. 5 V. 6 VI. 10 VII. GENERAL JURISDICTION 10 VII. 12 VIII. MODERN IN IN REM 13 IX. 14 14 I. 14 II. 22 III. 26 IV. 28 34 I. 34 II. 36 38 I. 38 II. 39 III. 42 III. 44 48 I. 48 II. 50 III. 53 A JURISDICTION: FOR AND AND AND AND ARE
language of claim. American Well Works No Not Super Important law (state law): one of the allegedly libelous claims related to patent (federal law). Yes: is based on State Law. --Federal law barges in Coincidentally on circumstances), not based on language of law itself. Super frequent Moore No Garden variety claim: Not Super Important itself is a torts claim law); available defenses are determined by federal law. Yes: Torts claim does not mandate interference from federal law. --Coincidental, not mandatory, interference. Super frequent Shoshone No Land Patents: Not super important Federal statute is meaningless on its own: requires looking to law to develop meaning. No, but in an inverse way: Federal law mandates state law to barge in. Potentially frequent. Merrell Dow No Labeling laws: Not Super Important Federal law does NOT have a private of action. N/A: based on Congressional desire/intent Super frequent. Bivens Yes Civil Rights: Super Important Federal law does NOT have a private cause of action (and there is indication that that is intentional), but court reads it in. Yes: Federal Law Not very frequent (hopefully). Grable Yes Lifeblood of Gov: Taxation. Super Important No private of action in Federal Law, but also no Congressional statement to the contrary. No: Grable’s claim is brought under State law (Title of Land), but the validity of the State Law Claim depends on the federal IRS land notification law. Not very frequent. Empire No Medical insurance Not Federal law does not have a private cause of action. Federal law, but no ability for Possibly frequent.
GRABLE TEST FQJ: Substance: How Substantive is the Federal Issue? Is it contested? Legislative Intent: Did the legislature intend to establish a private cause of action? Federalism: Federalism concerns: will this shift a ton of cases from state to federal court? Federal Interest State Interest 1. Uniformity Uniform national rule and enforcement. Once decided, the decision will have an effect across state lines. 1. Uniformity Unnecessary for national uniformity One-off case: will decide this case and no others. 2. Fact v. Law This is a matter of pure law to be determined—will not be necessary to constantly re-decide it based on factual circumstances. Fact v. Law or mix of law and fact. 3. Division of Labor (Federalism) Only federalize a low volume of cases. Efficiency and division of labor. 3. Division of Labor State law adopts federal standard. Don’t want to take jurisdiction away from states. Would allow a landslide of future cases (Moore, American Well Works) 4. Relative Weight of Antecedent federal question: on constitutionality of decision of federal issue Substantial of federal interest (Grable, Smith, Bivens) 4. Relative Weight State issue is overwhelmingly dominant (Merrell Dow). If state judge will be better suited to deal with entire care or just as good (Empire) II. Diversity Jurisdiction As opposed to FQJ: not based on the substantive nature of what’s being litigated, but rather on the parties involved. Accounts for about 25% of the federal court docket. Elitism issues: corporate bar an elite bench of judges. Plaintiffs’ bar wants choices. Developed in 1850 Plaintiffs can invoke diversity jurisdiction in own home state, but defendants can’t remove if suit brought in their home state. General Rules: Maximum Diversity (no overlap between citizenship on either side of the versus). Amount in controversy (based on plaintiffs’ good faith belief) must exceed $75,000. To justify dismissal, it must appear to a legal certainty that it won’t meet jurisdictional amount (St. Paul Mercury) Plaintiffs can invoke diversity in their home state, but defendants can’t remove to federal court even if there’s diversity if the suit was brought in their home state (no Bias—but there’s a bias inconsistency). Test for citizenship on the date that the complaint is filed Citizenship:
Can you hang additional claims or parties on an existing and get both into federal court? Case Type of Jurisdiction SMJ? Rationale Congressional Intent Takeaway United Mine Workers v. Gibbs Ancillary: add a new claim Yes Common nucleus of operative facts Look to Article III and define “case”; Some suggestion of Congressional tailwind (Congress wants labor claims in fed court). Adding a is okay (and under court’s discretion) as long as it emerges from same “common nucleus of operative facts.” Claims are fact-based. Aldinger v. Howard Combo: add a new party and a state claim against the new party No Civil Rights Act Congressional headwind: Congress want this type of claim in federal court You can’t add parties and stay in federal court by working around Congressional satisfy Congressional intent. Owen v. Kroger Pendent: add a new party No New party breaks complete diversity Congressional headwind: Congress only wants Complete Diversity cases in federal court If you add a new party under Rule 14 and they break complete diversity, there is no supplemental jurisdiction. Finley v. US Combo: new claim and new party No (but would be overturned by 1367) Congress was silent on adding new parties in this situation Congressional silence: court reads silence as closer to a headwind. This was wrong led to 1367. Jurisdictional Aggregation Math. Can you Combine? YES: 1 Plaintiff, 1 Defendant, Two Claims (each $75k, but combined they exceed $75k) Class Action against 1 Defendant (as long as at least 1 member exceeds $75k, that’s fine): Exxon Mobil v. Allapatah If one plaintiff satisfies the amount, other plaintiffs can hook on under Rule 23 and Rule 20 (Allapatah and Star-Kist). NO: One Plaintiff, Two Defendants, each claim under 75k.