Civ Pro - Spring 2007 - Clermont

Civ Pro - Spring 2007 - Clermont - CIV PRO OUTLINE, SPRING...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CIV PRO OUTLINE, SPRING 2007 Subject Matter Jurisdiction – R. 12(b)(1) Option 1: Federal Question Jurisdiction. Three requirements: 1) Well pleaded complaint. 2) Adequate federal element ( supposed to sound “fuzzy,” because it is) 3) Bell v. Hood Rule: - Don’t dismiss claims (even if no legally clear cause of action) if there is a substantial federal element (“non- frivolous,” “non-laughable” claims). - Put another way: factually and legally substantial (includes the “fabricator” and the “hair-brained legal theory”) - Something laughable in 1950 might be laughable by 1970. - NOTE: R. 12(b)(6) and R. 56 approach seems stronger way to deal with this. Why did the Gov’t even argue down a 12(b)(1) road? Pendent Jurisdiction Def: Covers same P and same D – with a federal and state claim problem. - Issue is that a federal court has before it one federal issue and one state issue. Can the federal court decide the state issue? - YES: Codified by § 1367 in 1990. P (federal + state claims) D Two approaches to this scenario: 1) Osborn : Federal courts must decide all issues between commencement and decision of a lawsuit. To operate as courts , federal courts must decide state issues. 2) Hurn : Yes, rational: convenience, judicial economy, convenience, fairness. 3) Gibbs : Yes, but in this case no PJ, because would be easier to handle claims separately, and the federal claim was dismissed. Rationale: Court has the POWER but, chooses to exercise DISCRETION for purpose of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Ancillary Jurisdiction Def: “Pendent involves same P & D. Ancillary traditionally covers everything else.” Revere example: P (State 1) [action] D1 (State 2) [CC 14(a)(6)] [IMP 14(a)] D2 (State 1) - Problem: P and D2 don’t have diversity. But ancillary jurisdiction covers this. - Rule: An ancillary claim must arise out of the same cause of action – meaning a “logical relationship to the core operative facts of the main claim.” Owen example: P (State 1) [action] D1 (State 2) [Claim 14(a)(7)] [IMP 14(a)] 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
D2 (State 1) - Problem: P (the innocent old lady) and D2 don’t have diversity. And P is the one counterclaiming. - Rule: P should not be able to do indirectly what P cannot do directly. Concern about collusion. - Owen is about Power . Only deals with complete diversity requirement of § 1332. Ortiz example (same as Owen ) P (State 1) [fed. question] D1 (State 2) [CC 14(a)(7)] [IMP 14(a)] D2 (State 1) - Problem: P and D2 don’t have diversity. - Rule: No problem, it’s a federal question, thus looks more like a pendent jurisdiction question (it’s still ancillary). - There’s already SMJ because a fed. question is at stake. Court has the Power . § 1367
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 25

Civ Pro - Spring 2007 - Clermont - CIV PRO OUTLINE, SPRING...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online