Civil Procedure I

The Constitution authorizes a federal court system in Article III, which provides that federal courts shall have judicial power over all “cases and controversies”:

1. Arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States;

2. Of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;

3. In which the United States is a party;

4. Between two or more states;

5. Between a state and citizens of another state;

6. Between citizens of different states;

7. Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and

8. Between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.

28 USC 1331: [Does not reach the entire scope of Art III Jur. Grants]

a. Well-pleaded Complaint: "it is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action and asserts that his defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution." Louisville & Nasville Railroad Co. v. Mottley 

b. Centrality: Can you sue under 1331: 

Case history for dealing with centrality:

  1. American well works: state cause of action= no jurisdiction

  2. Smith: When "the right to relief depends upon the construction of application of the Constitution of the laws of the US"= jurisdiction

  3. Moore: "a suit brought under a state statute whcih brings within the purview of the statute a breach of duty imposed by the federal statute, should not be regarded as a suit arising under the laws of the US."= no jurisdiction

  4. Merrell Dow Pharmeceuticals: when Congress did not authorize a cause of action because it would undermine congressional intent= no jurisdiction

  5. Grable v. Darue: the absence of a federal cause of action is not fatal to federal court subject matter jurisdiction, but in its absence, the federal question must be substantial in indicating a serious federal interest while also being appropriate, meaning that it does not upset any "congressionally apprioved balance of federal state judicial responsibilities." 

Diversity 28 USC 1332: 

 THE COMPLETE DIVERSITY RULE: 

Strawbridge v. Curtiss- You need complete diversity in order to have SMJ. All Plaintiffs must have diversity from all Defendants. Even one defendant who is from the same state as plaintiff destroys diversity. NOTE: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases brought under federal laws(federal question jurisdiction) or under diversity of citizenship (complete diversity)

For corporations, "citizenship" means: 28 USC 1332(c)(1):  place of incorporation + principle place of business

For individuals, "citizenship" means "domicile" =establishing residence + intent to remain there

For unincorporated businesses, "citizenship" means: place of incorporation of each and every business member.

THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY RULE:   

The amount in the pleadings must allege that the case is more than $75,000. 

- Good faith: the Courts generally trust the complaint unless it can be proven to legal certainty that it is not greater than a $75,000 amount worth. 

- Courts generally will go with the greater for analyzing the amount in controversy between damages to the plaintiff or cost of compliance by defendant. 

- Aggregation may be between one plaintiff and defendant but not among multiple parties on either side. (class action exception in a different statute). 

28 USC 1441-1446: [almost always an action by defendant because plaintiff always had the option to originally file in federal court] 

1. Allows a defendant to remove the case to federal court if original federal court jurisdiction exists

2. Diversity cases are treated differently than federal question cases. In diversity cases, an in-state defendant cannot remove to federal court even if diversity exists AND diversity cases cannot be removed after one year even if it only becomes removable after that time. 

3. Procedure: see 28 USC 1446

4. Timing: must be within 30 days of service

5. Defendant Unanimity: requires that all defendants agree to removal 

6. Amount in controversy: if the plaintiff is seeking less than the amount required, the defendant must prove to a legal certainty that the case is actually worth more for removal to occur and the plaintiff can stipulate at the beginning that they are not seeking more than $75K. 

Consequences of the fact that federal court jurisdiction is limited to areas granted by constitution and statutes

1. The parties to litigation cannot confer SMJ on a federal court by consent

2. A federal court's lack of SMJ is defense that cannot be waived Fed. Rule 12h3

3. There is a presumption against federal jurisdiction

          a. plaintiff must properly plead that federal jurisdiction exists

          b. if defendant challenges the allegation, the plaintiff assumes the burden of proving

              that jurisdiction exists.