Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

Diversity Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Removal, Study notes of Commercial Law

University of Florida (UF)Commercial Law

Civil Procedure Outline for Law School. University of Florida Levin College of Law. Topics include: Diversity Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Removal, Erie Problem

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 05/01/2012

kechristian
kechristian 🇺🇸

4.9

(12)

60 documents

1 / 13

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Civil Procedure – Civ Pro
us.docsity.com
C. Diversity Jurisdiction
02/20/2008
Arises from “case or controversy” between citizens of different states/countries
See 28 USC §1332
• note, unlike 1331, 1332 contains an amount in controversy requirement – Congress
has been increasing the amt
• (a) can involve
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state
are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
• alien admitted to US for permanent residence shall be deemed citizen of the State in
which they are domiciled
Redner v. Sanders (2000) p.193
• Facts
o Plaintiffs file suit in federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship
o Claims that Π is a citizen of US residing in France while Δ is a resident of NY
§ Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction – Granted.
• Issue: Jurisdiction?
• Holding: No.
o §1331(a)(2) requires that the parties be citizens of different countries, not
merely residents.
• Analysis
o citizens v. subjects – you are a subject of a monarchy, citizen of domestic
country (Eng. has subjects)
o Πs claim insufficient under (a)(2) because you must be a citizen of the foreign
state, not simply resided
§ would not matter if he was domiciled there
§ it does not enough to not be a citizen of the US, must be a citizen of
the other state
o as a fall back, Π relies on 1331(a)(1) and goes into his connections with
California
§ at one time, he was a domiciliary of CA and evidence shows that he
maintains connections
§ Court determines that still does not meet diversity requirements
ú in becoming domiciliary of France, then he can no longer be a
domiciliary of CA
28 USC §1332(a): “An alien admitted to the US for permanent residence shall be deemed a
citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.”
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd

Partial preview of the text

Download Diversity Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Removal and more Study notes Commercial Law in PDF only on Docsity!

C. Diversity Jurisdiction 02/20/ Arises from “case or controversy” between citizens of different states/countries See 28 USC §

  • note, unlike 1331, 1332 contains an amount in controversy requirement – Congress has been increasing the amt
  • (a) can involve (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
  • alien admitted to US for permanent residence shall be deemed citizen of the State in which they are domiciled Redner v. Sanders (2000) p.
  • Facts o Plaintiffs file suit in federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship o Claims that Π is a citizen of US residing in France while Δ is a resident of NY § Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction – Granted.
  • Issue: Jurisdiction?
  • Holding: No. o §1331(a)(2) requires that the parties be citizens of different countries, not merely residents.
  • Analysis o citizens v. subjects – you are a subject of a monarchy, citizen of domestic country (Eng. has subjects) o Πs claim insufficient under (a)(2) because you must be a citizen of the foreign state, not simply resided § would not matter if he was domiciled there § it does not enough to not be a citizen of the US, must be a citizen of the other state o as a fall back, Π relies on 1331(a)(1) and goes into his connections with California § at one time, he was a domiciliary of CA and evidence shows that he maintains connections § Court determines that still does not meet diversity requirements ú in becoming domiciliary of France, then he can no longer be a domiciliary of CA 28 USC §1332(a): “An alien admitted to the US for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.”

Saadeh v. Farouki (1997) p. 198

  • Facts o Farouki borrowed funds from Saadeh and defaulted on the loan o Saadeh brought suit for breach of several written contracts, invoked jurisdiction § Saadeh was a Greek citizen at all times § when suit filed, Farouki was a Jordanian citizen residing in MD, had “permanent resident immigration status § while litigation under way, Farouki became a citizen of the United States o District Court: judgment for Saadeh § Court of Appeals asked parties to brief jurisdiction – dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
  • Issue: Does the amendment of 28 USC §1332(a) in 1988 qualify Farouki as a citizen of a state?
  • Holding: No. Produces potentially unconstitutional result & abrogates longstanding rule of complete diversity. o Rule: Complete diversity is destroyed in a lawsuit between aliens and the fact that one of the aliens has “permanent resident” immigration status does not remove their label as alien for jurisdiction purposes.
  • Analysis o Farouki is Jordanian citizen, MD domiciliary § why might this matter – would be deemed a citizen of MD under 1332(a) o Problem – Why does Court say insufficient? § in this case, reading the literal language of the statute makes it difficult to get around the conclusion that diversity of citizenship is established § Even so, Court looks to legislative intent (not normally the procedure when language clear) ú says that not meant to create diversity when it does not exist – not meant to allow citizens of 2 different countries to sue each other in the US federal courts ú in allowing citizens of 2 different countries, goes against the Constitution - for diversity, requires citizen of a state and a citizen of x, y, or z - has been expanded to include Washington DC and territories but no further §1332(c)(1) Corporate Citizesnhip
  • deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated o under this, can me a citizen of many states (anywhere that incorporated)
  • deemed of a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business

D Can’t Aggregate P2 50K à (3) P1 75K à D Can Aggregate (see Exxon below – Supplemental Jurisdiction) P2 50K à D. Supplemental Jurisdiction United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

  • 2 Claims, one federal and one state, both arising out of the same activity – strike o no diversity
  • Court: federal court has jurisdiction because the state claim is pendant to the federal claim o there was no statute authorizing at this time – Courts simply creating the rule themselves o if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole § uses same transaction or occurrence standard (common nucleus of operative fact) § Why? ú might be a res judicata issue ú might be forced into going to state court if they don’t want to bring separate suits (forcing them to give up federal courts)
  • Court also gives federal courts the opportunity to decline jurisdiction in certain circumstances: o federal claim minor and the state claims predominate o danger of undue confusion
  • 2 Part Test: o Power (common nucleus of operative fact) o Discretion 28 USC §1367 – this is Congress’ attempt to codify Gibbs (a) Power Prong o this is the scope of what is covered by 1367 – when you have a claim that is within federal jurisdiction, brings with it all other claims that are so related to tat they form part of the same case or controversy under Art. III of the Constitution o includes claims that involve joinder or intervention of additional parties (this is an extension of Gibbs ) o if it is in the same constitutional case, then supplemental jurisdiction

§ so long as the constitutional case invokes original jurisdiction on the grounds of federal question, does not matter if the parties brought in would “destroy complete diversity” because that is not the basis on which the federal court had jurisdiction (c) Discretion Prong (1) and (2) state issue is the more important one (3) district court has dismissed all federal claims (4) catch all provision Jin v. Ministry of State Security (2003) p.

  • Facts o Πs all practice Falun Gong (self improvement practice similar to Tai Chi) o Chinese government perceived as a threat, began campaign in chine to eradicate the practice § in US, to reach overseas Chinese residents, government sought to use mass media outlets, going so far as to stage a limited-access news event where practitioners set themselves on fire o Πs brought action alleging violations of their rights under the Constitution and federal and state law by persons and entities associated with the People’s Republic of China § alleged civil rights violations, challenged RICO statute (basis for federal jurisdiction) and alleged defamation (a state claim) ú CTC (Δ) moves to dismiss the defamation claim pursuant to 12(b)(1) and (6) ú Court dismisses - Πs defamation claim past 1 year statute of limitations
  • Issue: Is dismissal appropriate?
  • Holding: Only under 12(b)(6) – failed to state a claim because Statute of Limitations had expired. o 12(b)(1) Challenge – Court looked at 2 part test to determine if supplemental jurisdiction appropriate § Do the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact? ú if the state law and federal claims are related to the point that the Πs would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding § Do the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support?
  • Analysis o 12 (b)(6) – based on the face, which included the first instance of defamation, Court could determine when the SOL would expire and dismiss for failure to state a claim § Πs lost more by having won on the subject matter jurisdiction than had it been decided that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction ú cannot re-file this action in state courts – res judicata o this is the typical Gibbs scenario – pendant claims

à à à à (Π amends complaint) 3PΔ(FL) o 1332(b): no supplemental jurisdiction (4) Π(FL) à Δ1 (GA) Π(GA) à o Π joined under Rule 20, o (Assume that got past 1367(a) – ignore Allapattah rule) this would be a 1367(b) loophole that is cured by Allapattah § wanted to avoid this because this would be accepted but example 1 would not (5) Π(FL) à (100,000) Δ 1 Π(FL) à (50,000) o contamination theory does not apply to jurisdictional amount, thus this would be allowed o this rule applies to Rule 20 and 23 1367 Review (a) gives you the scope of supplemental jurisdiction

  • qualified by contamination theory (b) exceptions for diversity cases (c) gives the courts discretion over which cases to take E. Removal 28 U.S.C. § (a) Any case brought in state court can be removed to federal court if the action would have been able to be filed in the federal court to begin with. (b) Diversity Cases: removable only if none of the defendants are citizens of the State in which the action is brought. Problem 1 p.212 – Removable? a. Defamation is state claim, no removal (even though anticipate a deferral defense – claim couldn’t have been filed in DC) b. Yes, clearly under the Constitution. c. Yes, have diversity and jurisdictional amount requirement. d. No under 1441(b) - Δ is citizen of the state where claim is brought. e. Yes, not solely a diversity case thus citizenship would not defeat removal (assuming qualifies for supplemental juris) f. No. As long as you have any local defendant, cant be removed. g. Past: when state court did not have jurisdiction, could not remove to federal courts because of the lack of jurisdiction. Now: 1441(f) allows for removal in these cases 02/26/ 28 U.S.C. §1446 – Procedure for Removal

(a) Where case is originally filed in state court, the defendant must provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action. (b) 30 days to remove after filing initial complaint in state court. If initial complaint is not removable, has 30 days from date that Π amends the complaint to be removable (a case may not be removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction (from §1332) more than 1 year after commencement of the action) 28 U.S.C. §1447 – Procedure for Challenging Removal Problem 2 p. a. Grounds on which there is federal jurisdiction – 1446(a) b. Sanctions under Rule 11 c. Cannot remove after 30 days – 1446(b) d. Yes. 1446(b) e. Maybe. Situation where it looks like Π is trying to stay out of federal court – federal courts have split on this question.

  • some states prohibit the plaintiff from seeking a specific amount of money - Π gets whatever amt. proved o in those situation, federal courts have said that Δs must prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is above the jurisdictional limit
  • other jurisdictions hold that the ad damnum clause is not the limit on recovery o in these states, does not make sense to not allow the Δ to prove that the amount in controversy is more f. 1446(b) – a case cannot be removed more than a year after filing if jurisdiction based on 1332 CHAPTER 4: THE ERIE PROBLEM (E&E: 165-174, 187-200) A. Easy Eerie Swift v. Tyson (1842)
  • Facts: Contracts – commercial law. Was cancellation of pre-existing debt consideration for a bill of exchange?
  • In diversity cases, in matters of “general law” the governing body of law was the federal common law. o 1789: Congress passed RDA – said the “laws of the several states to apply”
  • Ct. interpreted this to mean that only the statutory law of the state should apply. o Determined that the federal courts should examine all the common law authorities – including cases form the state in which it sat, from other states,

B. Eerie Erie: Substance v. Procedure 02/27/ Issues most often arise when it is hard to distinguish between substantive and procedural law.

  • Post 1978: applied federal procedural law and state substantive law – what’s the line between the 2? o Under Federal Rules Enabling Act, the FRCP only supposed to address procedure (28 U.S.C. §2072) o however, there are many rules of procedure that the FRCP don’t address – simply matters of practice o Also, have procedural statutes – adopted by Congress rather than the Supreme Court (ie venue)
  • First issue to come up: Statute of Limitation. Is statute of limitations matter of procedure or of substance? Federal Rules Enabling Act (REA): 28 U.S.C. § 2072. (a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrates thereof) and courts of appeals. (b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules s shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect. o incidental effects not enough to make invalid, must seriously, directly effect. (c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title. Substantive v. Procedural Definitions
  • Substantive Rule: want to affect primary behavior of society
  • Procedural: how those rights get enforced (want to ensure that the substantive rule gets enforced correctly) o aka adjective law – helps/assists substantive law Sibbach v. Wilson:
  • Court confronted whether, in an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician based on federal law.
  • Court held that important and substantial procedures are not substantive, rather they are still considered procedural, and federal law applies. Guaranty Trust: Statutes of Limitations
  • Case was brought in federal court where the state’s SOL had run out.

o DC wanted to follow federal doctrine of laches: in equity, there was no hard and fast SOL, instead followed laches doctrine – plaintiff hadn’t been sleeping on their right

  • Supreme Court: Issue – is statute of limitations procedural? o Erie’s concern was forum shopping – the questions on the line between substance and procedure should be analyzed with this in mind. § Ask: would the difference likely result in a different outcome in the federal courts? § Here: It would. ú Therefore, apply the state Statute of Limitations.
  • What about if there were paper size requirements, is that outcome determinative? o There are an infinite number of cases where small things could be outcome determinative. o There was a fear that the outcome determinative cases would go too far. Byrd v. Blueridge
  • Should they be treated as employee or nonemployee – mattered because would determine whether could recover workers’ compensation or tort o Judge decides in state, Jury decides in federal
  • Court: Even if the difference was outcome determinative, it may in some cases be necessary to apply the federal rule if there is a strong federal policy. o Wanted to send to jury because there is a strong policy in federal courts to have issues of fact tried by the jury. Hanna v. Plumer – The Current Framework (See Handout)
  • After this case, key question: Is there a federal rule or federal procedural statute applicable in this case. o If so, the question is whether or not it is valid. § If it is, then it applies. o If no, and merely a federal practice and see if outcome determinative.
  • State: required personal service on the administrator, Federal required only domiciliary service o the Π served to wife of administrator – would be valid under federal, not under state o Δ defended that because outcome determinative and should be dismissed, Ct. denies this. Hanna Part 2: There is a federal rule (saying domiciliary service is permissible) ú not a question of whether outcome determinative or not ú only issue is whether it is valid – if so then apply the federal rule Hanna Part 1: Even if there were no applicable federal rule, we would apply the federal practice. ú in those circumstances, the issue is whether outcome determinative.

o Does it conflict with the state rule? What is the purpose of the federal rule and the sate rule? Do both try to accomplish the same purpose but in different ways? o Is the federal rule valid? (If federal rule controls and is valid, then it applies) Substance/Substance Distinction

  • Erie/Hanna Part I (right side of chart): outcome-determinative; no federal rule or statute that governs, then you ask whether the state rule is substantive and if it will effect forum shopping for the federal court not to apply it
  • Hanna Part II (left side of chart): where federal rule and state rule conflict ; the federal rule controls as long as it applies and is valid; state rule would only apply if it was substantive in the sense that because it is in contact with the federal rule it is actually invalid Hypothetical: State statute that says that malpractice cases the plaintiff within 60 days after filing the complaint, must file and affidavit of merit signed by a physician that the plaintiff’s injury is likely a result of negligent medical care; does that provision have to be applied in federal court?
  • It is not in conflict with FRCP 8
  • It was outcome determinative