Civ Pro II Holden-Smith 2002(36)

Civ Pro II Holden-Smith 2002(36) - Civil Procedure II...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Civil Procedure II Professor Holden-Smith Spring 2003 1 of 36
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction I. General Principles a. Principles i. Cannot confer SMJ by consent, collusion (Jackson v. Ashton) ii. No waiver (American Fire v. Finn) iii. No estoppel iv. Attack 1. always possible 2. 12(b)(1) 3. Can be attacked by invoker 4. Court’s must themselves inquire 12(h)(3) v. Can be collaterally attacked 1. RJ bars attack if 1 st court adjudicated J 2. BOP – shifts to the attack of J II. Federal Question Jurisdiction - § 1331 a. Claim must be founded directly on federal law - i. Claims directly raising Constitutional issues or depend for their resolution on Constitutional construction are clearly federal ii. Federal statutes, administrative regulations or executive orders are generally considered to be laws of the U.S. giving rise to federal jurisdiction b. Substantiality Requirement (Bell v. Hood) i. Immediate dismissal required when asserted claim is utterly frivolous or without merit 1. 12(b)(1) – RJ Effect - no such suits ever permitted in fed court 2. 12(b)(6) – Metaphysical implosion of claim c. Well Pleaded Complaint - Must show the existence of the federal question without reference to any other pleading i. Federal jurisdiction must be pleaded and proved ii. Cannot anticipate what defense will argue and assert that it involves federal question – must be federal issue in P’s complaint iii. Declatory relief – courts look to underlying dispute, rather than who instituted suit iv. P cannot avoid removal by omitting to plead necessary federal questions v. Incomplete statement of federal basis can be cured by amendment III. Supplemental Jurisdiction § 1367 a. 1367(a) Federal Questions – Gibbs Transaction approach for federal q i. Common nucleus of operative fact ii. P would ordinarily be expected to bring both claims in a single proceeding iii. Note: can hear 14(a)(7 th ) claims as supplemental here, but not on a diversity claim b. 1367(b) – Diversity Actions – Wooden Owen Rule i. No if means destruction of diversity ii. J exists for 1. 13(a) – Compulsory counterclaim (not for permissive counterclaim) 2. 13(g) – Cross-claim arising out of same transaction 3. 24(a) – Intervention as a right, same subject of transaction 2 of 36
Background image of page 2
4. 14(a)(1) - Impleader 5. 14(a)(6) – 3PD claims against P arising out of same transaction c. 1367(c) – Court may decline jurisdiction (Gibbs Discretion Test) i. Compelling circumstances (Executive Software) ii. Test 1. Judicial economy 2. Convenience 3. Fairness 4. Comity - allowing states court to determine questions of state law d. 1367(d) – Tolls state SOL when a fed court dismisses claim under 1367(c) e. Oddities i. If in Fed court due to § 1356 (U.S. a party), P can assert non-federal claims against non-diverse TPD, as complete diversity not a requirement of § 1356, as long as its same TOOA ii. A permissively joined (FRCP 20) P can, in an odd quirk, bring a related nonfederal claim for less than the jurisdictional amount against a D that is
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 36

Civ Pro II Holden-Smith 2002(36) - Civil Procedure II...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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