Civil Procedure I Outline_Devlin.docx - LSU Law List

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: qingyunliuliu

Tags

Stats

views:: 2
posted:: 8/11/2011
language:: English
pages:: 24

Public Domain

Document Sample

Civil Procedure I

Devlin

Fall 2008

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
1. Introduction and Integration
2. State Courts and General Subject Matter Jurisdiction
3. Federal Courts and Limited Subject Matter Jurisdiction
a. The Constitutional Grants and Role of Congress
i. Article III § 1 (U. S. Constitution)
1. Judicial power of the U.S. shall be vested in one Supreme
Court. Congress may create inferior courts if necessary
ii. Article III § 2 (U. S. Constitution)
1. Judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the
U.S. Constitution; Federal Law; Federal Treaties; and all
cases related to Ambassadors; Public Ministers;
Consuls; Admiralty; Maritime; where the U.S. is a party;
controversies between 2 or more States; between a
State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of
different States; Citizens of same state making claims of
land granted under different States; and between a
State, or a Citizen thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or
Subjects
b. Plaintiff’s Burden to Establish Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
i. Federal court jurisdiction is limited to what the constitution
says it has jurisdiction over; parties cannot be heard in federal
court simply by “consenting.”
ii. Rule 12(h)(3)
1. If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.
iii. Default is that there is not federal jurisdiction; it is up to
Plaintiff to prove there is.
iv. Rule 8(a)(1), (2), (3)
1. (a) Pleading must contain:
a. (1) Grounds for Federal Court’s jurisdiction
b. (2) grounds that plaintiff is entitled to relief
c. (3) specify relief sought
c. Diversity of Citizenenship and Alienage Jurisdiction
i. Introductory Note
1. Title 28 § 1332 (a)(1) and (a)(2)
a. (a) Federal District Court shall have jurisdiction
of all civil actions > $75,000 and is between:
i. (1) Citizens of different States
ii. (2) Citizens of a State and
Citizens/Subjects of a foreign state
2. Alienage Jurisdiction (citizens of foreign states) created
for two reasons:
a. Gave aliens forum free of political influence
b. Demonstrated to foreign governments that the
U.S. treats cases involving their citizens with
such importance, they put them in the highest
court
3. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction created to:
a. Avoid home cookin’
b. Provide impartial forum for business
i. Fostered economic expansion
ii. Single most important element in
securing capital for developing south and
west U.S.
4. Critics to Diversity say:
a. Home cookin is a thing of the past
b. Diversity only changes the judge, does not
change the law that is applied
c. No longer necessary
d. Shouldn’t burden federal system w/ these cases
5. Proponents to Diversity say:
a. Home cookin is still in effect
b. “As long as I can redistribute wealth to our state,
people will continue to re-elect me as judge”
c. Federal courts draw juries from more diverse
pool; less bias
d. Generally lawyers like diversity; offers them
another forum
ii. Complete Diversity Rule
1. Strawbridge v. Curtis
a. Multiple defendants and plaintiffs; one state in
common between one D and one P; not completely
diverse; no jurisdiction
b. Complete Diversity
iii. Determining Citizenship of Individuals
1. Mas v. Perry
a. MS Student and her Husband from France in LA
for school; Never changed citizenship to LA;
Established diversity
i. Citizen of a State:
1. Citizen of the U.S.
2. Domicile in that State
ii. Determining Domiciliary:
1. Intend to move someplace and stay
for the immediate future, and
2. Arrive there
3. **If you are a domicile of NY, and
have not completed both steps
toward changing domicile to AZ, it
is still NY.
iii. Non-U.S. Citizen
1. Treated AS IF citizen of State where
domicile
2. Not citizen of state if they have not
satisfied both elements of changing
domicile
iv. Determining Citizenship of Entities
1. Corporations
a. Title 28 § 1332 (c)(1)
i. Corporation shall be deemed citizen of
any State where it is incorporated, and
where its principle place of business is
b. Randazzo v. Eagle-Picher
i. Angry judge case; P lawyer did not meet
burden of proof of jurisdiction; could have
if he write his complain correctly; Must
dismiss (See rule 8(a)(1))
ii. One of the first examples of a class-action
iii. State of Incorporation
c. J.A. Olson v. City of Winona [Did not find fed
jurisdiction]
i. Olson (HQ in Chicago) brings suit against
Wynona (MS) in Fed Court; Olson’s Main
plant in MS
ii. Nerve Center Test (Scot. Typewriter v.
Underwood)
1. When operations are far flung, the
sole “Nerve Center” is most
significant.
iii. Place of Activity Test (Kelly v. U.S. Steel)
1. Sole operation in one state, but HQ
in another, the sole operation is
more significant.
iv. Total Activity Test (Instant case)
1. Considers the Nerve Center Test and
the Place of Activity Test.
2. When activity of HQ is passive, and
the “brain” is in another state, the
“brain” is given more significance.
2. Non-Incorporated Businesses
a. Belleville Catering v. Champaign Market
i. After federal court decided case, found out
P and D were both from IL; No jurisdiction.
ii. Partnerships have citizenship where
partners have citizenship
iii. LLC is not directly addressed
1. At this time majority opinions gives
LLC citizenship where partners
have citizenship
v. Amount in Controversy Requirement
1. Article III of Constitution has no requirement
2. Title 28 § 1332 has the requirement for two reasons:
a. Federal forum should not be a small claims court
b. Docket control
3. Diversity and alienage cases have minimum of $75,000
4. Federal Question has no minimum requirement
vi. Aggregation of Claims
1. One Plaintiff – One Defendant – When there is one
plaintiff and one defendant a plaintiff may aggregate all
claims to meet the jurisdictional requirement

You CAN aggregate unrelated claims when it’s one plaintiff v. one defendant.

Δ (LA)

Car $40k
π (MS)

Hospital Bills $30k
Pain & Suffering $35k
Total $105k

If your total amount of HARM is $40,00, you can’t aggregate based on different
grounds that establish that one HARM. You can add different HARMS, not
different THEORIES on which one harm is based.
2. Multiple Plaintiffs/Defendants – When there is more
than one plaintiff or more than one defendant,
aggregation generally is not allowed. – This rule only
applies where claims are “separate,” and “distinct.”

Π (LA)
Δ owes Π #1 $50k for stealing then crashing π1’s car
Δ owes Π #2 $60k for property damage
Separate & Distinct Claims,
cannot be aggregated.

Δ (MS)

Π (LA)

Δ (LA)
Δ #1 owes me $50k for faulty repair work to my car
Δ #2 owes me $60k for hospital bills and a new car
Separate & Distinct Claims,
cannot be aggregated.

Π (MS)

Δ (LA)
3. Common Undivided, Joint Claims – ex. P suffers one
injury allegedly caused by joint tortfeasors D-1 and D-2.
P’s personal injury damages are $76,000. This DOES
meet the amount in controversy requirement. The joint
liability of D-1 and D-2 means either could be held for
$76,000.

Δ
They owe me $76k for property damage
(LA)

they created together, but I don’t know who
owes what.
Common/Undivided/Joint Claims,
can be aggregated

Π (MS)

Δ (LA)

4. Aggregation Summary:
a. Ask what the maximum amount you could
recover from one person is. If the most you can
get from each is $40,000 (Because they are
separate claims on separate individuals, that
ADD UP to exceed $75,000, but no individual
claim could exceed $75,000) then, NO.
d. Federal Question Jurisdiction
i. Narrow Interpretation of the Jurisdictional Grant
1. Title 28 § 1331
a. Federal district courts shall have jurisdiction of
all civil matters arising under Constitution,
Federal Law, or Federal Treaties
2. Court have read this narrowly (just as the diversity
statute – complete diversity necessary)
a. Federal law must be the claim, not the defense
b. Federal law must be sufficiently central to the
claim asserted
ii. Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule
1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
a. Lifetime train travel revoked because Federal
Statute outlawed such tickets
b. Federal Statute was a defense to the breach of
contract; Cause of action did not arise under the
Federal Statute; Federal Statute was not
sufficiently central to the claim
c. Well-Pleaded Complaint is JUST THE
COMPLAINT; The complaint in this case included
things about the defense; the defense is where the
Federal Statute was introduced; If the complaint
was well-pleaded, no mention of a federal statute
would be mentioned; no reason for federal
jurisdiction
2. Declaratory Judgments
a. Title 28 § 2201
i. In cases of actual controversy within its
jurisdiction, any court of the United States
may declare the rights of any interested
party seeking such a declaration.
b. Title 28 § 2202
i. Further relief based on declaratory
judgment may be granted.
iii. Centrality of the Federal Issue to the Claim
1. Merrell Dow v. Thompson
a. Birth defects from Merrell Dow’s pharmaceuticals
case
b. Constitution simply says claim must arise under
(Article III § 2); Statute interpreted so as it must
arise under and be sufficiently central to the claim
(Title 28 § 1331)
c. Did Legislature provide a remedy for this
Statute? Creation Test
d. Is plaintiff in class protected by statute?
e. Did Legislature intend to provide private cause
of action based on this statute? Creation Test
f. Would federal cause of action further the purpose
of the statute?
e. Supplemental Jurisdiction (Article III) [28 U.S.C. §1441(c)]
i. Plaintiff has two claims against Defendant. One arises under
federal statute, the other a state statute. Plaintiff cannot get
federal jurisdiction for state statute under diversity. Federal
court may decide to hear both causes of action if state cause of
action is so closely related to federal question cause of action
as to say it is the same case or controversy.
f. Removal Jurisdiction
i. Noble v. Bradford Marine
1. Boat caught fire, flames spewed to another boat and
caught it on fire case
2. Title 28 § 1441(a)(b)(c)
a. Defendant MAY remove a civil action brought
against him in state court to federal court as long
as the federal court has original jurisdiction
b. Any civil action brought in state court arising
under Constitution, treaties, laws of U.S. SHALL be
removable to federal court regardless of
citizenship. Any other such case SHALL be
removable only if diverse.
c. Several causes of action, state actions MAY be
brought along, OR remanded to state court (up to
federal judge’s discretion)
3. Title 28 § 1446 (a)(b)
a. State civil action removed to federal court must be
removed to federal district in same geographic
area of state court.
b. Notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of
receipt of complaint
i. If original complaint does not satisfy
federal subject matter jurisdiction, must
file removal within 30 days of an amended
complaint that does satisfy it.
4. Creation Test
a. Does federal law create the cause of action?
b. Federal Statute gives you the right and the remedy
c. “Lets some baby out w/ the bathwater” -Devlin
ii. Grable & Sons v. Darue Engineering
1. IRS seized Grable’s property and sold to Darue at auction
case
2. Differentiated from Noble v. Bradford Marine
a. Uncommon circumstances
i. Will not introduce tons of federal litigation
b. Meaning of federal statute is actually in question
i. Federal court has interest in clarifying that
meaning
3. Smith/Grable Test
a. Does State Law claim raise a Federal issue,
actually disputed and substantial, which a Federal
Forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal/state
judicial responsibilities?
b. Does complaint show need to resolve substantial
issue of federal law?
iii. Removal from Federal to State
1. Title 28 § 1447 (c)
a. (c) motion to remand to state court for any
reason other than lack of subject matter
jurisdiction must be filed within 30 days of the
motion to remove to federal court; any time
before final judgment, if federal court finds it
does not have subject matter jurisdiction it
SHALL remand to state court.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
1. Introduction and Integration
a. Traditional grounds for personal jurisdiction
i. Presence
1. Pennoyer v. Neff
2. Burnham v. Superior Court
a. Transient (3 days) okay
3. Wyman v.Newhouse
a. May not procure through fraud!
ii. Citizenship/Domicile
1. Milliken v. Meyer
iii. Consent
1. Hess v. Pawloski
a. Implied Consent
2. May appoint an agent
3. May consent by contract
4. Adam v. Saenger
a. Filing a complaint in a court allows personal
jurisdiction for counterclaim
iv. Voluntary Appearance
1. Special appearance allows you to appear to contest
jurisdiction without consenting to jurisdiction for the
actual complaint
2. Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction
a. The Fountainhead
i. Pennoyer v. Neff
1. Constructive service made on non-resident to assert
personal jurisdiction case
2. 14th amendment was not around yet
3. Service of process for personal jurisdiction must be made
while defendant is physically present in forum state.
4. Rule became outdated when transportation and
interstate commerce became more prevalent
b. Interim Developments
i. Hess v. Pawloski
1. Car crash in state; only contact w/ forum state case
2. Statute
3. Service of process through state appointed agent does
not violate 14th amendment (Implied Consent).
4. Only one isolated contact that cause of action arose out of
ii. Milliken v. Meyer
1. Meyer given service in CO for WY court proceeding; Meyer
found to be domicile in WY; service good in CO because
Meyer domicile in forum state.
2. Domicile in WY sufficient basis for extraterritorial
service
3. Full Faith and Credit given because original case did not
violate due process.
c. The Modern Era
i. International Shoe v. WA
1. Originated Two-Part Test
a. Minimum Contacts
b. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial
Justice
2. Specific IPJ allowed for cause of action arising out of
contact
ii. McGee v. International Life Ins.
1. International Life bought out Empire; re-insured McGee;
claimed no contact w/ forum state when McGee had suit
2. Statute
3. Single contact out of which the cause of action arose
4. If the CONTRACT has contact with the forum state, that’s
good enough
iii. Smith v. Twinstate
1. Twinstate did work on Smith’s house; only contact w/
forum state; that contact had cause of action arise from
it.
2. No Statute
3. Single contact out of which the cause of action arose
iv. Hanson v. Denckla [Did not find jurisdiction]
1. Trust opened w/ person; person moved to FL case
2. Unilateral act of plaintiff cannot create jurisdiction
(contacts)
3. Defendant must PURPOSELY AVAIL to the rights and
privileges of the forum state
4. Contacts between CONTRACT and forum state (McGee)
no good. Must have contacts between the Defendant and
the forum state, and it must be from the Defendant’s own
actions.
v. Gray v. American Radiator
1. Faulty valve put in stream of commerce case
2. Long arm statute
3. Cause injury in forum state
4. Defendant intentionally placed product in stream of
commerce that would foreseeably find its way to forum
state
5. Defendant derived benefits from forum state.
vi. World-Wide Volkswagon v. Woodward [Did not find
jurisdiction]
1. Limits Long Arm Statute
2. Stream of commerce ends w/ consumer
3. Did not purposely avail to forum state
4. Foreseeability no sufficient by itself
5. Differentiated from Gray because
a. Titan valve knew what Amer. Rad. was doing with
the valves; WWVW does not know what the
Robinsons are doing with the car
b. Titan valve was selling to Amer. Rad.
continuously; WWVW made one sale to the
Robinsons; not a relationship where WWVW
would be able to know what Robinsons were doing
with the car
vii. Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Court
viii. Kulko v. California [Did not find jurisdiction]
1. NY Dad, CA Mom, Kids sent to CA case.
2. Effects Test
3. Plaintiff’s unilateral activity does not create jurisdiction
4. Defendant has not purposely availed himself to CA
a. Indirect benefits (his children are benefiting) don’t
count
5. Non-tortuous; Non-commercial
ix. Calder v. Jones
1. National Enquirer libel aimed at CA resident case.
2. Effects Test (Caused an effect in CA)
a. May have jurisdiction in forum state if “Effect” is
in forum state even though the “Person” is not
there
3. Defendants purposely aimed their acts toward
California
4. Conduct in FL calculated to cause injury in CA
5. Reasonably foreseeable that tort aimed at CA would have
them hailed to court in CA
6. Tortuous; Commercial
x. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine
1. Upheld personal jurisdiction even though plaintiff had
little contacts w/ forum state (Chose NH because it was
the only state where suit had not prescribed)
2. Contacts between defendant and forum state required,
but there need not be any contact between plaintiff and
forum state.
3. Tortuous; Commercial
xi. Why Litigants Care About Where Litigation Occurs
xii. Burger King v. Rudewiez
1. Poor performing BK franchise case
2. Anticipated long relationship between BK & Rudzewicz
3. Given fair notice in contract
xiii. Asahi Metal Industry v. CA [Did not find Jurisdiction]
1. Faulty valve in motorcycle tire with Taiwanese and
Japanese litigants case
2. Must pass contacts test & T.N.F.P.S.J.
3. This case passed contacts, but not T.N.F.P.S.J.
4. Majority (O’Connor) said Purposely Availing by putting
products in stream of commerce is not passive knowledge
that they would reach the forum state like Gray v. Amer.
Rad.; Purposely Availing is an active/deliberate effort
such as a marketing plan for the forum state or mfg a
product specifically designed for the forum state
5. Concur (Brennan) said the Gray/Passive Knowledge test
was fine, but there would not be jurisdiction because it
was very unfair and very unreasonable.
6. Decision was split evenly between O’Connor and Brennan
d. General Jurisdiction
i. Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall [Did not find jurisdiction]
1. Contacts must be continuous & systematic for general
jurisdiction
ii. Reyes v. Marine Management
1. Honduran died on ship w. co. hq in Hong Kong and
branch office in NOLA case
2. Two part test for general jurisdiction w/ shifting
burden of proof
a. Continuous & Systematic Contacts
i. Burden on Plaintiff
b. T.N.F.P.& S.J. (if Plaintiff satisfies contacts)
i. Burden on Defendant
iii. Perkins v. Benguet Mining
1. Mining co. in Ohio case
2. Found limited yet continuous & systematic contacts
sufficient for general jurisdiction
e. Consent
f. In Rem and Quasi-in-Rem Jurisdiction
i. Shaffer v. Heitner [Did not find jurisdiction]
1. Greyhound stock case.
2. Quasi-in-Rem case using stock as the “property”
3. Majority (Marshall) said contacts were too weak; didn’t
even address T.N.F.P. & S.J.
4. Dissent (Brennan) said contacts were clear & it was a fair
& reasonable forum.
g. Transient Presence
i. Burnham v. CA [4-4-1 decision]
1. Ex-husband in town for 3 days, served w/ summons.
2. Majority (Scalia) said “old is good”
a. Used International Shoe. Man was in CA (albeit
only 3 days); presence = jurisdiction.
3. Dissent (Brennan) said “old is NOT good”
a. Used Shaffer v. Heitner. ALL assertions of
jurisdiction should be consistent with current
standards.
ii. Harris v. Balk
1. Harris owed Balk money, and Balk owed Epstein money.
Epstein wanted to sue Balk, but couldn’t get personal
jurisdiction because Balk never entered his state. Harris
was in the state, so Epstein brought quasi-in-rem action,
using Harris as Balk’s “Property” and recovered by
claiming the money due from Harris to Balk.
ANALYSIS FORMULA FOR SPECIFIC IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION

1. At least a single contact with forum state with cause of action arising
from that contact
2. Statute
a. Long-Arm Statute?
i. Type A (Illinois)
ii. Type B (California)
iii. Both (Louisiana)
3. Constitutional (Two-Part test from International Shoe)
a. Contacts
i. Quality & Nature of Contacts
1. Purposeful Avail to the rights and privileges of the
forum state? (Hanson v. Denckla)
2. Foreseeable that they would be hailed into court in
forum state? (WWVW)
3. Intentional Tort? (Calder v. Jones)
4. Contractual Relationship? (Burger King & McGee)
5. Stream of Commerce (Gray & Asahi)
a. O’Connor – Active
b. Brennan – Passive
ii. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice (list
from Asahi)
1. Burden on Defendant
2. Interest of Forum State
3. Plaintiff’s interest
4. Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining most
efficient resolution
5. Shared interest of several states in promoting public
policy
ANALYSIS FORMULA FOR GENERAL IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION

1. Statute
2. Constitutional
a. Contacts (Two Part Test from International Shoe)
i. Quality & Nature of Contacts
ii. [BURDEN ON PLAINTIFF TO PROVE](Shifting burden of
proof came from Reyes v. Marine Mgt.)
iii. [MUST BE CONTINUOUS & SYSTEMATIC FOR GENERAL
JURISDICTION]
1. Purposely avail to rights and privileges of forum state?
2. Foreseeable that they would be hailed into court in
forum state?
iv. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice (list
from Asahi)
v. [BURDEN ON DEFENDANT TO DISPROVE]
1. Forum State’s Interest
2. Burden on Defendant
3. Plaintiff’s Interest
4. Interstate Judicial System’s Interest
5. Shared Interest of Several States
6. Other Nation’s Interest
ANALYSIS FORMULA FOR IN-REM/QUASI-IN-REM JURISDICTION

1. Statute
2. Constitutional (Two Part Test for In-Rem/Quasi-In-Rem from Shaffer v.
Heitner)
a. Contacts (Two Part test from International Shoe)
i. Quality & Nature of Contacts
ii. [MUST ESTABLISH CONTACT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF,
DEFENDANT, PROPERTY, LITIGATION AND FORUM STATE]
1. Purposely avail to rights and privileges of forum state?
2. Foreseeable that they would be hailed into court in
forum state?
iii. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice (list
from Asahi)
1. Forum State’s Interest
2. Burden on Defendant
3. Plaintiff’s Interest
4. Interstate Judicial System’s Interest
5. Shared Interest of Several States
6. Other Nation’s Interest
TRADITIONAL GROUNDS FOR IN PERSONUM JURISDICTION

1. Presence
h. Pennoyer v. Neff
i. Burnham v. Superior Court
i. Transient (3 days) okay
j. Wyman v.Newhouse
i. May not procure through fraud!
2. Citizenship/Domicile
k. Milliken v. Meyer
3. Consent
l. Hess v. Pawloski
i. Implied Consent
m. May appoint an agent
n. May consent by contract
o. Adam v. Saenger
i. Filing a complaint in a court allows personal jurisdiction for
counterclaim
4. Voluntary Appearance
p. Special appearance allows you to appear to contest jurisdiction
without consenting to jurisdiction for the actual complaint
DETERMINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

1. Federal Question (Article III) (28 U.S.C. §1331)
a. Creation Test (Louisville & Nashville RR v. Motley)(Justice Holmes)
b. Smith/Grable Test (Smith v. Kansas City Title)(Grable & Sons v. Darue)

2. Diversity (Article III) (28 U.S.C. §1332)
a. Citizenship
i. Strawbridge v. Curtis (Complete Diversity)
ii. Mas v. Perry (non-us citizen)(domicile)
iii. Randazzo v. Eagle Pitcher (State of Inc.)
iv. Scot Typewriter v. Underwood (Nerve Center Test)
v. Kelly v. U.S.Steel (Place of Activity Test)
vi. Olson v. Winona (Total Activity Test)
vii. Belleville Catering v. Champaign (Partnerships & LLCs)
b. Amount in Controversy
i. >75,000
RELEVANT RULES:

U.S. Constitution, Article III (Pg. 1328)

 § 1 – Judicial power of the United States vested in one Supreme court, and in
such inferior courts as congress deems necessary
 § 2 – Judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases arising
under the Constitution, Federal Law and Treaties; all cases affecting
Ambassadors; all cases of admiralty; cases where the U.S. is a party; cases
between two or more States; cases between a State and a citizen of another
State; cases between citizens of different States; citizens of the same State
claiming lands granted under another State; cases between a domestic
State/Citizen and foreign State/Citizen.

U. S. Constitution Amendment V (Federal Due Process Requirement) (Pg. 1330)

 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law.

U. S. Constitution Amendment XIV (1) (State Due Process Requirement) (Pg. 1332)

 All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.; and
 Citizens of the State wherein they reside
 No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the U.S.
 No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law
 No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections
of the laws.

28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Law)(Pg. 1266)

 Federal District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, Federal Law and Treaties.

28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Diversity)(PP 1266 – 1267)

 (a) Federal District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where amount in controversy is >$75,000, and is between:
o (1) Citizens of different States;
o (2) Citizens of a domestic State and citizens of a foreign State;
o (3) Citizens of different States and in which citizens of a foreign State
are additional parties; and
o (4) A foreign State as plaintiff and citizens of a State or different
States.
 An alien admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence (Green Card) is
treated “as if” he is a citizen of the State in which he is domiciled.
 (c) (1) A corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has
been incorporated and of the State where it has its principle place of
business

28 U.S.C. § 1441 (Removal)(PP 1282 – 1283)

 (a) Civil action brought in State court, where Federal court has original
jurisdiction, MAY be removed to Federal court by defendant
 (b) Civil action brought in State court where Federal court has original
jurisdiction based on Constitution, Federal Law or Treaties SHALL be
removable to Federal Court regardless of citizenship of parties; any other
actions shall be removable only if defendant is NOT a citizen of the State in
which the case has been brought.
 (c) When several causes of action are brought, some have Federal
Jurisdiction, some do not, and case is removed to Federal Court, Federal
Court MAY hear all causes of action, or MAY hear Federal causes of action
only and remand the rest to State Court.

28 U.S.C. § 1446 (Removal Procedure)(PP 1285 – 1286)

 (a) Defendant wanting to remove to Federal Court SHALL file in district court
within same geographic region as the State Court action
 (b) Notice of removal SHALL be filed within 30 days of defendant receiving
notice; if the original complaint is not removable, notice of removal SHALL
be filed within 30 days of defendant receiving amended complaint that is
removable; Not removable based on § 1332 (diversity) after 1 year has
passed form commencement of action

28 U.S.C. § 1447 (Removal Procedure cont.)(PP 1286 – 1287)

 (c) Motion to remand to State court, for any reason other than lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, must be brought within 30 days of § 1446(a) motion to
remove to Federal court. If at any time before final judgment, it appears
Federal Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, case SHALL be
remanded.
 (d) Order remanding a case to State Court may not be reviewed/appealed
unless it is a civil rights matter.
 (e) After defendant has removed a case to Federal Court, Plaintiff seeks to
join additional defendants that would destroy subject matter jurisdiction,
Federal Court may allow joinder and remand the case, or deny the joinder
and keep the case.
Federal Rule 4(k) (Long-Arm Rules)(PP 163; 194)

 (1) Service of summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal
jurisdiction over a defendant:
o (a) Who is subject to a State Long-Arm Statute
o (b) Who is JOINED to a case and is served within 100 miles of where
summons was issued (100 Miles “Bulge” Rule)
o (c) Who is subject to Federal Long-Arm Statute

Federal Rule 4(n) (In-Rem // Quasi-In-Rem)(PP 164; 202-203)

 (1) Federal Law – Federal Court may assert in-rem or quasi-in-rem
jurisdiction over a person’s property if authorized by Federal Statute.
 (2) State Law – If Personal Jurisdiction cannot be established in the
district, Federal Court may assert in-rem or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over a
person’s property in accordance with State Law

Federal Rules 8(a) (Claim for Relief) (PP 255; 257)

 (a) Pleading that states claim for relief should include:
o (1) Grounds for the court’s jurisdiction;
o (2) Statement showing plaintiff is entitled to relief; and
o (3) Relief sought

Federal Rule 12(b) (Pre-Trial motions for dismissal) (P. 36)

 (b) Party may assert the following defenses by motion:
o (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
o (2) lack of personal jurisdiction;
o (3) improper venue;
o (4) insufficient process;
o (5) insufficient service of process;
o (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
o (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19
LA R. S. Title 13 § 3201 (Long-Arm Statute)

 (A) A court MAY exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who
acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising form any one of the
following activities performed by the nonresident: [Illinois Type]
o (1) Transacting any business in this state.
o (2) Contracting to supply services or things in this state.
o (3) Causing injury or damages by an offense or quasi-offense
committed through an act of omission in this state.
o (4) Causing injury or damages in this state by an offense of quasi-
offense committed though an act or omission outside of this state IF
he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other
persistent course of conduct, or derives revenue from goods used or
consumed or services rendered in this state.
o (5) Having an interest in, using or possessing a real right on
immovable property in this state.
o (6) Non-support of a child, parent, or spouse or a former spouse
domiciled in this state to whom an obligation of support is owed and
with whom the nonresident formerly resided in this state.
o (7) Parentage and support of a child who was conceived by the
nonresident while he resided in or was in this state.
o (8) Manufacturing of a product or component thereof which caused
damage or injury in this state, if at the time of placing the product
into the stream of commerce, the manufacturer could have
foreseen, realized, expected, or anticipated that the product may
eventually be found in this state by reason of its nature and the
manufacturer’s marketing practices. (O’Connor Active Test)
 (B) In addition to the provisions of Subsection A, a court of this state may
exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent
with the constitution of the state and of the Constitution of the U.S.
[California Type]