You've been served!
Under Rule 12, a defendant must serve an answer within this many days after being served with the complaint (unless they waive service or file a Rule 12 motion).
What is 21 days?
A plaintiff sues a defendant in federal court based on diversity. Can the plaintiff join an additional state-law claim against the same defendant, even if that claim by itself would not meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement?
What is yes?
A single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant, even unrelated ones, to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.
In diversity-only cases, this party cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to get around the $75,000 requirement or complete diversity, but this party still can.
What is the plaintiff cannot, but the defendant can (through impleader, crossclaims, or counterclaims)? n diversity-only cases, plaintiffs cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to bring in additional parties if doing so would destroy complete diversity or circumvent the $75,000 amount requirement. However, defendants may still use supplemental jurisdiction for related claims (such as impleader, crossclaims, or counterclaims).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They can only hear cases that fall within these two main categories.
What are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction?
Under this rule, even if diversity exists, a defendant cannot remove a case if they are this.
What is a citizen of the forum state?
(28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2): Known as the “forum defendant rule,” a case otherwise removable on diversity jurisdiction cannot be removed if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.)
A defendant files a Rule 12(b) motion. How does this affect the time to file an answer if the motion is denied?
What is 14 days after notice of the court’s action?
Two plaintiffs sue one defendant in federal court under diversity. Plaintiff 1 seeks $100,000 in damages, and Plaintiff 2 seeks $40,000 for a related claim from the same accident. Can both claims remain in federal court?
What is yes?
As long as one plaintiff independently meets the $75,000 amount, the court has diversity jurisdiction, and under supplemental jurisdiction (§1367) it may hear the related claim of the second plaintiff.
A student from State A moves to State B for law school but intends to return to State A after graduation. For diversity purposes, what is the student’s domicile?
What is State A?
Temporary residence for school (or work) does not change domicile without intent to remain indefinitely.
A case arises under federal law if the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law, or if a substantial federal issue is embedded in a state-law claim. This is known as the ______ test.
What is the well-pleaded complaint rule?
Generally, all defendants must do this in order for removal to be proper, unless an exception applies.
What is consent to removal?
(Unanimity rule: All properly joined and served defendants must consent to removal. Exceptions: separate and independent federal claims, or statutory carve-outs.)
Most Rule 12(b) defenses are waived if not raised in the first motion or responsive pleading. Name the three defenses that are never waived.
What are lack of subject matter jurisdiction (12(b)(1)), failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)), failure to join an indispensable party (12(b)(7)?
A developer contracted with a general contractor to build an office building, and completion of the building was two years late. The developer filed a breach of contract action in federal district court against the general contractor, seeking damages caused by the delay. The developer is a citizen of State A, and the general contractor is a citizen of State B. The general contractor filed a third-party claim against a major subcontractor, claiming that the subcontractor caused any delay and should be liable to the general contractor for anything the general contractor has to pay the developer. The subcontractor believes that the developer interfered with the subcontract and that the developer’s interference caused not only the delay but also substantial cost overruns for the subcontractor. Like the developer, the subcontractor is a citizen of State A.
May the subcontractor assert and maintain a claim against the developer in the pending action seeking payment for the cost overruns?
What is Yes? because the subcontractor’s claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s original claim, and the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.
The subcontractor is a third-party defendant (brought in under Rule 14).
§1367(b) restricts plaintiffs from bringing certain claims in diversity cases that would destroy complete diversity, but those limits do not apply to third-party defendants.
Because the subcontractor’s claim against the developer arises from the same transaction or occurrence (the construction delay and cost overruns), the federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over it.
Two plaintiffs sue one defendant in federal court. Plaintiff 1 is from State A and sues for $100,000. Plaintiff 2 is from the same state as Plaintiff 1 and sues the same defendant for $30,000 arising out of the same car accident. Can both claims stay in federal court?
What is yes?
Plaintiff 1 independently satisfies §1332’s amount. Plaintiff 2’s related claim can ride along under supplemental jurisdiction (§1367), even though it doesn’t meet $75,000.
This is the strict time limit for removal in most cases, but there is a one-year bar for diversity removals unless this exception applies.
What is 30 days to remove, and the one-year diversity removal bar can be overcome if the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal?
(28 U.S.C. § 1446(b): Defendant has 30 days from service to remove. § 1446(c): In diversity cases, removal after one year is barred unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to keep the case in state court.)
An amendment changing the party relates back only if the new party had notice within this time period and knew it should have been sued.
What is 90 days after filing of the original complaint (Rule 15(c))?
A college filed a breach of contract action against a general contractor in federal district court. If the contract was breached, the general contractor believes that the fault was that of the framing subcontractor. The general contractor thus files a third-party claim against the subcontractor seeking indemnification for any sums the college recovers from the general contractor. The general contractor also wants to assert a tort claim against the subcontractor for $80,000 worth of equipment belonging to the general contractor that the subcontractor took from the construction site. All parties are citizens of different states.
May the general contractor assert the tort claim in the pending action?
What is yes? While the tort claim is not a proper third-party claim, the general contractor may join the tort claim with the indemnification claim under Rule 18(a).
A plaintiff, domiciled in State A, sues two defendants in federal court for breach of contract. Defendant 1 is incorporated in State B with its principal place of business in State A. Defendant 2 is an individual domiciled in State C. The amount in controversy is $150,000. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim?
What is no? because Defendant 1 is also a citizen of State A, destroying complete diversity.
For diversity, a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Because Defendant 1 shares State A domicile with the plaintiff, complete diversity is destroyed.
A plaintiff sues in state court under both state law and federal law. The defendant removes the case to federal court. The plaintiff then drops the federal claim, leaving only the state-law claim. Does the federal court still have jurisdiction?
What is yes?
If the case was properly removed on the basis of a federal question, the federal court has discretion to keep the state claims (supplemental jurisdiction) or remand them, dropping the federal claim doesn’t automatically destroy jurisdiction.
A plaintiff filed a negligence complaint on the last day of the statute of limitations but mistakenly named the wrong company as defendant. The correct company had no notice of the suit until 6 months after filing. The plaintiff later moves to amend the complaint to add the correct company. The correct company objects, arguing the claim is time-barred.
Will the amendment be allowed?
What is no?
Under Rule 15(c), an amendment changing a party relates back only if the new party received notice within 90 days of filing and knew or should have known it was the intended defendant. Because the correct company had no timely notice, the amendment cannot relate back, and the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
A homeowner hired an exterminator to treat her house. The exterminator hired a subcontractor to dig around the foundation, and the subcontractor damaged it. The homeowner sued the exterminator in federal court for $90,000. Can the exterminator file a third-party claim against the subcontractor for any liability to the homeowner?
What is yes?
Under Rule 14 (Impleader), a defendant may bring in a third party who may be liable to them for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim.
On his 25th birthday, a young man decided to move to State A. He packed his belongings and shipped them to State A to be stored. He intended to drive his car to State A, stay in a hotel until he found an apartment, and then have his belongings delivered to the apartment. As the man drove away from his State B apartment, he was in an automobile accident and suffered severe injuries. He has remained in State B because of his injuries, but still intends to move to State A when he recuperates. While still recuperating in State B, he filed a negligence action against the other driver in federal district court, seeking $500,000 for his injuries. The other driver is a citizen of State B.
Does the federal district court have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim?
What is no? Intent to move is not enough without physical presence. A domicile may be established by (1) physical presence in the new place and (2) the intention to remain there indefinitely.
Four investors, all of whom are American citizens, own as a partnership a chain of 15 car dealerships in a number of states. Two of the investors live in State A, one lives in State B, and one lives in State C. The investors leave the day-to-day operation of each dealership to a manager that the partnership employs. The investors leave the management of the entire chain of dealerships and the day-to-day operation of the partnership to several key officers that it employs. The officers operate out of the partnership's largest dealership, which is in State D. A customer of the State D dealership sued the partnership in federal district court in State D, alleging fraud and breach of contract arising from her purchase of a car, and claiming, in good faith, damages exceeding $75,000. The customer is a citizen of State D.
Does the federal district court in State D have subject matter jurisdiction over the customer's action against the partnership?
What is yes? because the plaintiff customer is a citizen of State D while the defendant partnership is a citizen of State A, State B, and State C.
For unincorporated businesses, such as partnerships and LLCs, look at the actual partners of the owners and take the domicile of the owners and wherever they are domiciled, that will be the citizenship of the business.
A State A citizen and a State B citizen were in an automobile accident in State B. The State B citizen filed a negligence action for $500,000 against the State A citizen in a federal district court located in State B. The State A defendant would prefer to litigate the case in a State B state court. The State A defendant thus filed a notice of removal, seeking to transfer the case to a State B state court.
Should the federal court grant the motion?
What is No? because removal to state court is not available for cases that are properly filed in federal court and that are within the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441, a defendant may remove an action that could originally have been brought in the federal courts, based on either a federal question being presented or on diversity of citizenship.