The Constitution, SCOTUS, Congress + Inferior Courts
Article III sec. 1
Gives Congress the right to create inferior courts
Inferior Courts
The inferior courts are all federal courts other than the Supreme Court that are under the Supreme Court. And ordained and established by Congress.
Note: State courts are not included in the Inferior Courts. Instead they are a concurrent system (they can hear the same cases!)
Rule 8(a)(1)
Pleading
A short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support.
Need to tell the court why they have jurisdiction. As part of their pleading, saying there’s a Constitutional and Statutory grant!
Rules of Decision Act:
If the parties of a civil action are from different states, the Court will use the substantive laws of “State where the cause of action arose”.
i.e. If TX v. MN and the cause of action (battery, assault, etc.) arose in MN, even if the suit is being tried in TX they would use MN substantive law.
1441
(a): Any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by defendant/defendants to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending
Note: Since plaintiffs are masters of the complaint and they get to decide where it goes. Since they chose the forum they also don’t have the power to remove.
(b): Removal based on Diversity of Citizenship
(2) If an action that is otherwise removable is only based on 1332(a), action may not be removed if parties properly joined as DEFENDANTS is a citizen of State where action is brought.
Rule12(b)(2)
is a dismissal of a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction
Needs notice and fairness
When it is less burdensome for D to make themself available to defend themself, it is more fair to D (which satisfies fairness under PJ)
Nowadays, with the way the world is interconnected, this can include things like Zoom courts.
Note: SMJ does not care about fairness! SMJ is just a question of authority
Article III sec. 2
Gives the power of the federal courts to hear out certain cases.
Including cases between people of different states.
Minimum diversity:
At least one plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from at least one defendant.
Including citizens of States and foreign citizens and subjects
Cases that arise under constitutional/federal laws.
Where Osborn gets “Ingredient of Federal Law”
Rule 12 = defenses in different forms
12(b) - Motions to dismiss
12(b)1 and 12(b)2 = most commonly in practice. SMJ and PJ.
12b(7) dismissing for a failure to join a necessary party (Rule 19).
12(h)(2) = timing. When to raise the joinder defense…
At the pleadings 7(a) you can bring these defenses
12(c)
after pleadings but pre-trial, motion for judgement on the pleadings.
At trial
28 USC 1331
1331 needs Federal Law Claim (arising under the Constitution).
i.e. claim of violation of Civil Rights/Constitutional Rights
Well-pleaded Complaint Rule (Mottley) → Narrows Osborn
The basis of the cause brought up by the Plaintiff needs to be based in federal law or the Constitution
1446 - Procedure for Removal of Civil Actions
Removals are the removal of the entire civil action
Removals go STATE to FEDERAL. Remands go FEDERAL to STATE.
Not a petition. A unilateral filing by the Defendant that automatically results in removal
P can bring in counterarguments in federal court and request remand AFTER removal has been effectuated.
(a): A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the FRCP and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy for all process, pleadings and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.
(b) Requirements
(1): Notice of removal shall be filed w/in 30 days after receipt by D… or w/in 30 days after service of summons if such initial pleading has then been filed in court… whichever period is shorter.
(2) (A): When a civil action is removed solely under 1441(a), all D properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the Action
Rules Enabling Act
Enables FRCP that makes Rule 4 even happen 4(k)(1)(a) (Fed court has the same pj reach as state courts)
Rule 4
4(k)(1)(a): Servign a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.
4(k)(1)(b): Who is a party joined by Rule 14 and Rule 19, and bulge jurisdiction allows for Fed courts to reach beyond state boundaries for 100 miles.
4(k)(1)(c): When authorized by a federal statute
Origin and Impact of the Rules
Federal Rules of Procedure:
28 USC 2071-2074
Congress’s delegation to the SC regarding rules of procedure for the inferior courts and the procedure the SC must follow when SC is exercising this delegated authority.
2071-2074 USED to be Act of 1934
Also called the “Rules Enabling Act”
Before the FRCP…
The Conformity Act (Until 1934) would have made courts use procedural law of the state where the suit is being tried.
Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties
19(a) - The person is required to be joined if feasible if
(a)(1)(a) - In that person’s absence the court cannot accord complete relief
among existing parties
(a)(1)(b)(i) - Where the party to be joined would lose their ability to protect their
interest
(a)(1)(b)(ii) - Where not joining them would leave an existing party to a risk of
incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations.
28 USC 1332
332 = Citizens of different states = Complete Diversity (Strawbridge) AND
“Where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000...”
1332(a)(1) Citizen v. Citizen of different states
1332(a)(2) Citizen v. Alien, Alien v. Citizen, Alien + Alien v. Citizen
Citizens of a State and citizens/subjects of a foreign state UNLESS domiciled in the same state as the citizen who lives in the State.
TX v. A(tx) NOT ALLOWED based on 1332(a)(2) after the comma
TX v. A(la) ALLOWED
Alien v. Alien is NEVER allowed
Rule of Unanimity
When civil action is removed solely under 1441(a) all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in and consent to the removal of the action.
3rd party defendants are not considered defendants for
unanimity.
(3): If the case is not removable, notice of removal may be filed within 30 days from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.
Note: This is basically a clock reset!
(c)(1): Case may not be removed under (b)(3) based on 1332 more than one year after commencement of the action unless district court finds P acted in bad faith in order to prevent D from removing the action.
(d) Three step process to strip state court of jurisdiction
File notice of removal with Fed court
At this point there is still concurrent J
Then promptly give adverse parties WRITTEN NOTICE of the filing of the notice of removal
At this point there’s still concurrent J
File notice of removal with the clerk of the state court.
As this point, state court is stripped of jurisdiction and state court “shall proceed no further.”
Fairness (Constitutional Grant of Authority):
Does the application to the statute at the case at hand meet the standards of due process (This is talking about the constitutional grant of authority) “Notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Through GPJ
Burnham
Present while served
Mallory
Consent to be served
Presence
Domicile
PPB, Inc.
SPJ
Overall Rule Statement: Minimum Contacts Test (Shoe)
For Specific Personal Jurisdiction, due process requires that the defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum state that the maintenance of the suit does not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice.
(From here, break off to talk about the difference of personam or in rem (Shaffer)).
Minimum contacts test
Purposeful Availment
Continuous and Systematic (Shoe)
One action
Rules of Decision Act:
If the parties of a civil action are from different states, the Court will use the substantive laws of “State where the cause of action arose”.
i.e. If TX v. MN and the cause of action (battery, assault, etc.) arose in MN, even if the suit is being tried in TX they would use MN substantive law.
Rule 20
Permissive Joinder of Parties (in general, P and D)
May join in on action as P if
Assert right to relief jointly… arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions/occurrences
What is the Grable test?
Two Prong Test
Does a state law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial? If Yes…
May the federal court entertain claim w/out disturbing any balance between federal and state responsibilities.
Will extending this to the federal court cause State issues to be sent to federal court? Expanding federal jurisdiction is difficult bc it gets in the way of federalism.
1404 - Change of Venue
For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.
When analyzing if 1404 is proper, look to public/private interest factors
Rule 4
Summons:
4(a) - Contents (of a summons) and amendments
4(b) - Issuance (for clerk to sign and issue for service on D)
4(c) - Service (By whom)
4(e) - Serving an Individual w/in Judicial District of the United States (Serving D in
regards to location)
4(k) - Territorial Limits of Effective Service
Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a Defendant
4(k)(1)(a)
Who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located
Note: Tying fed court PJ to state court Jurisdiction. If State court has jurisdiction then fed court has PJ. This is almost always how it’s done!!!
Other ways Fed court can exercise Personal J
4(k)(1)(b)
4(k)(1)(c)
when authorized by federal statute
Securities litigation
Anti trust claims
Bankruptcy allegations
Bankruptcy rule (7004(f))
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Rule12(b)(1)
dismissal of a claim bc no subject matter jurisdiction
Constitutional Grant of Authority
Article III sec. 2
Gives the power of the federal courts to hear out certain cases.
Including cases between people of different states, cases between citizens of the States and foreign citizens (Minimum Diversity)
Cases that arise under constitutional/federal laws
This includes the primary causes of action and the defense that could be brought up (Minimum per Osborn)
Rule 13(a)
Counterclaim (P or D’s counterclaim)
Arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
Note: This is more narrow than 20 since it only speaks of one transaction/occurrence.
SuppJ Overall
Supplemental jurisdiction claim (a claim w/out original federal jurisdiction) can be heard with one that has original jurisdiction as long as they (the claim without original jurisdiction and the claim with original jurisdiction) are part of the same case or controversy. The test to check this is if there is a common nucleus of operative fact (Gibbs).
We can do this under Constitution
Article 3 Section 2 allows for cases and controversies
Statutorily
1367(a) This adds in the supplemental claim as long as they form part of the same case or controversy. The test to determine this is Gibbs through finding a common nucleus of operative fact.
Next check if 1367(b) takes away Supp J!
1367(b) takes away supplemental jurisdiction granted by 1367(a) if a plaintiff sues a person made party pursuant to a whole bunch of rules when that suit does not satisfy 1332.
Note: However, if there is still a federal claim (1331) attached, then there is no bar to the Plaintiff against person made party claim!
Venue 12(b)(3)
is a motion to dismiss based on an improper venue
1391
Applicability of Section -- Except as otherwise provided by law--
Venue in Geneal: A civil action may be brought in--
A judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
[Note: Where there is one defendant (b)(1) will ALWAYS be satisfied.]
A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
[Omission = Where a contract is supposed to be performed but the performance is omitted]
If there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
State Long Arm Statute
State statute that authorizes the state’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over certain out of state defendants, provided that notice and fairness is satisfied or any objections to personal J is waived.
Special Appearance = legal fiction. Only for the limited purpose of contesting personal j but not be present so that that p j exists over their appearance. to appear before the court even when the court doesn’t have personal jurisdiction for the purposes of contesting jurisdiction.
Before Special Appearance:
If D showed up that means that State did have PJ OR choose to not show up, get the default judgement and then challenge afterward in a collateral attack (An attack/fight on a separate claim (personal jurisdiction in this case) on the default judgement. And if you lose on the collateral attack then you can’t fight on the merits of the case.