CivPro_Reynolds_3 - 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE I JURISDICTION SMJ PJ...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CIVIL PROCEDURE I. JURISDICTION: SMJ, PJ and VENUE a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction i. Definition: Power of the court to hear a type of case ii. Because a court that does not have SMJ cannot enter a valid order, SMJ can be challenged at any time. iii. Federal courts: Limited jurisdiction iv. Defined by Article III: Nine categories; authority from Congress 1. Article III created SCOTUS; Congress cannot abolish it 2. States usually have concurrent authority v. Federal Question Jurisdiction 1. Questions arising from federal statutes and treaties, US Constitution 2. No minimum amount in controversy 3. 28 U.S.C. section 1331 4. Original vs. Exclusive Jurisdiction a. Original: Federal court CAN hear b. Exclusive: ONLY federal court is permitted to hear 5. State substantive law can flesh out federal statutes: SOL (Erie doctrine) 6. Declaratory judgment actions: Realign the parties, if the person who would bring the action has a FQ, there is FQ- if P is bringing the declaratory judgment action on a federal defense, there is no FQ. 7. : Where the FQ arose from a defense, SCOTUS held no SMJ because the pleading did not state a FQ. 8. Two conditions must be met to satisfy FQ jurisdiction: a. Q of federal law must appear on the face of well-pleaded complaint b. P’s cause of action must be: i. Created by federal law OR ii. Resolution must turn on substantial Q of federal law if it is a state law claim c. Substantial Q of federal law TEST: Whether Congress evidenced an intent to provide a federal forum i. Nicodemus v. Union Pacific (2003): When P sued to stop RR’s alternate use of right of ways, 10 th Circuit held that mere presence of federal issue does not confer FQ jurisdiction- here, Congress did not provide a right of action arising out of the land grant statutes. d. State claims may be removed to federal court ONLY i. When Congress expressly says so (Price-Anderson) 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
ii. When federal statutes completely preempt state law cause of action iii. Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson (2003): SCOTUS held that removal of usury claim under AL law was proper b/c National Bank Act governs and this preempts Alabama usury laws. 1. Scalia: Preemption should be a defense in state court, not grounds for removal. iv. Types of Preemption 1. Complete: Some statutes preempt state claims to the extent that anything may be removed a. ERISA claims 2. Conflict preemption: Federal statutes trump state statutes 3. Area preemption: Some areas of federal law fill a subject area in its entirety vi. Diversity Jurisdiction 1. Two requirements: Diverse Citizenship AND Minimum Amount a. Cases involving citizens of different states: Diverse Citizenship (determined on date of filing) b. Minimum amount in controversy: $75K i. Different P’s cannot aggregate claims 1. Exception: Joint interest in a property ii. One P can aggregate its own claims iii. Some courts will include compulsory counterclaims iv. Costs may be found if P awarded less than $75K
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.

This note was uploaded on 03/03/2010 for the course LAW 28465 taught by Professor Carson during the Fall '09 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 36

CivPro_Reynolds_3 - 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE I JURISDICTION SMJ PJ...

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