TENSION BETWEEN
•Liberal joinder rules
•Subject matter jurisdiction requirement
GAVE RISE TO SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION
Docsity.com
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Supplemental Jurisdiction & Tension: Liberal Joinder vs. Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Slides of Civil procedure
The tension between liberal joinder rules and the subject matter jurisdiction requirement in the context of supplemental jurisdiction. How the supplemental jurisdiction statute 28 u.s.c. § 1367 affects traditional aggregation rules and provides examples of hypothetical cases to illustrate the concepts. The document also covers removal jurisdiction and legal sources for removal, as well as limits and procedure for removal.
Typology: Slides
2012/2013
1 / 18
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download Supplemental Jurisdiction & Tension: Liberal Joinder vs. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!
TENSION BETWEEN
- Liberal joinder rules
- Subject matter jurisdiction requirement
GAVE RISE TO SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
STATUTE 28 U.S.C. § 1367
TRADITIONAL AGGREGATION
RULES CONT’D
- Multiple Ps sue the same D for different claims: e.g. Dorothy – ME (passenger) sues George- TX (driver) in federal court for $45,000 for damages suffered in a car crash.
- A. Is there subject matter jurisdiction? What if Laura- DC, also a passenger in George’s car, wants to join as a plaintiff to sue George for $35,000 for her injuries arising from the same accident?
- B. Will the supplemental jurisdiction statute change the result?
TRADITIONAL AGGREGATION
RULES CONT’D
- Would it make any difference to your answers in the previous hypothetical if Dorothy’s claim was for $90,000?
28 U.S.C. sect. 1367(d)
- This is a tolling provision
- What is its effect?
- What is the reason for this tolling provision?
- Is it constitutional?
28 U.S.C. sect. 1367(d)
- Is it constitutional? Yes – see Jinks v. Richland County, 349 S.Ct 298 (2003) (necessary and proper and does not violate state sovereignty)
REMOVAL JURISDICTION
- What is removal?
- What is the policy justification for removal
- a. For diversity cases?
- b. For federal question cases?
LEGAL SOURCES FOR
REMOVAL JURIDCITION
• NOT IN U.S. CONSTITUTION
- So, removal is purely statutory.
- There have been federal removal statutes since 1789.
WHEN IS A CASE
REMOVABLE?
- There must be original subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court
- Basic rules of federal question and diversity/alienage apply
- Well-pleaded complaint rule applies
- Artful pleading rule
WHAT IF FEDERAL COURT HAS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION?
- P brings action in state court
- Can D remove?
- See 28 U.S.C. section 1441(e)
WHERE IS CASE REMOVED
TO?
- What court(s) may hear a claim that is removed?
- What is the applicable statutory provision determining this?
CHALLENGING REMOVAL
- How does a plaintiff challenge removal?
- Can a plaintiff waive her right to challenge removal?
- Are there any applicable time limits? If so what?