Civ Pro 8.23.

13
civil procedure - rules have to be fair to have proper victor access through westlaw-Twen password: jurisdiction Redner, Bellville case, foruki case (on Twen), Hertz office: 800 (Right turn from elevator) email: jayne.ressler@brooklaw.edu assistant: cossette.charles@brooklaw.edu final is open book limited. no casebook, no commercial outlines, an outline to which you have substantially contributed to creating, rulebook

civil procedure punishment for person found liable is "remedy" $$$ types of remedies: money injunction - remedy that orders someone to stop doing something. specific performance - orders someone to start doing something Burden of proof: criminal case - beyond reasonable doubt civil case - preponderance of evidence (easier) Shirley Jones Article: Shirley Jones can sue for defamation sue magazine husband author (South) sources editor (Calder) publisher (National Inquirer) decide what you want from it (injunction) where to file suit Jones is in California National Inquirer is in Florida

South lives in Florida Sources are in California need to consider which state might be more favorable for her case, which states has more favorable civil procedures, which state is economically more convenient *Can a particular court exert power over a particular defendant? South's argument - article was written in florida, i live in florida, all phone calls were in FL, I have no connection to California Jones's argument - i was injured in California, you make money in California, you knew I was in California, circulation is higher in California

South's defense - it's a national magazineshe'll be injured nationally, not just in California. substantive perspective- if journalists have to answer to all the articles they write, journalists will be hesitant to write anything, toll on business. --> chilling effect Calder v. Jones - went to supreme ct in 1984. Jones and her husband sued in CA state court. Sued magazine, Calder, South, local CA magazine distributor. magazine did not protest CA court Calder and South protestested against CA. CA quashed holding case in CA saying there would be a chilling effect among journalists CA appeal court says you do have to try case in CA because they intended to injury Jones in CA U.S. Supreme court affirmed for Shirley Jones that CA has the jurisdiction to hear the claim because defendant injured in california an individual injured in CA shouldn't have to go to florida to those who knowingly caused injury in california Can't use 1st amendment substantive reason for concerns about procedure.

Civ Pro 8.27.13

Article III

8/26/2013 5:41:00 PM

Sec. 1 judicial power of the US is vested in the US Supreme Ct. Sec. 2& 2 sets the limits of federal judicial authority to all cases involving the Constitution, treaties, cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, case of admiralty, diversity cases. Only Congress has power to restrict or expand the scope of federal judicial authority 28 USC 1332 (a)-(c)(2), (e) limits diversity cases to matter in controversy exceeding $75,000 Glannon Ch. 5 Diversity Jurisdiction Strawbridge v. Curtis diversity requirement there must be complete diversity between the partiesall plaintiffs in a suit are from different states than all defendants. Statefarm Fire & Casualty v Tashire diversity jurisdiction allowed as long as some opposing parties are diverse State citizenship persons domicile where he has taken up residence with intent to reside indefinitely. Simply owning a residence is not sufficient. Corporate citizenship principal place of business where a corporations officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporations activities. Where the corporation maintains its headquarters, not just where they hold board meetings. case. If Plaintiff A sues Plaintiff B for $80,000 and Plaintiff C joins as co-plaintiff suing B for $30,000 OK Plaintiff A sues Defendant B for $35,000 and Defendant C for $200,000 NOT OK Plaintiff A can sue Defendant B for $50,000 and for $60,000 on completely unrelated matter in single case. Plaintiff A can sue 2 defendants, either of which MIGHT be liable for $100,000even if it liability might be shared. Ok since only 1 might be liable for entire amount Decided by Hertz Corp. v Friend Amount in controversy requirement must exceed $75,000 per defendant in 1

Yeazell Constitutional Limits in Litigation Jurisdiction power to declare the law Legislative Jurisdiction Judicial Jurisdiction o o o Personal Jurisdiction power of this court over this defendant Subject Matter Jurisdiction power of this court over this kind of case Court must have BOTH personal and subject matter jurisdiction to render a valid judgment Article IV requires Full Faith and Creditbe given in each State to judicial proceedings of every other State requires that one state recognize and enforce the judgment of another state Pennoyer v. Neff set precedent for personal jurisdiction Constitution dictates choice of law: > Supremacy Clause- Constitution and federal laws shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. If Congress enacts a statute, federal and state courts are required to enforce it regardless of contrary state statutes or state common law > in the absence of a controlling federal statute, the federal court system is required to respect the statutory and common law rules of several states

Subject Matter Jurisdiction For federal court, there must be both personal jurisdiction AND subject matter jurisdiction. Choosing federal v. state court Federal: - shorter waiting time until trial - strategic if def is less likely to get sympathetic hearing from the local state judge - federal jury is 6 people drawn from a broader geographic area and required to reach a unanimous verdict. (state ct jury verdict does not have to be unanimous) - depends if federal judges more inclined to enforce arbitration agreements? - is federal bench more liberal or conservative that state ct in that jurisdiction - federal judges have lifetime tenure and less likely to give in to political pressure better for litigating unpopular claim Diversity Jurisdiction Redner v. Sanders (SDNY 2000) Pr. History: Plaintifff says federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. C Facts: Plaintiff alleges he is a citizen of US residing in France and ef. Are residents of NY and corporate defs principal place of business in NY diversity under 28 USC 1332 (2) diversity betweencitizens of State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state Ct says no diversity under 1332(2) because plaintiff is a citizen of the US, not of France. Plaintiff is merely residing in France no diversity Rule: plaintiff needs to be a citizen of a foreign state, not merely a resident. Diversity of residence not sufficient to meet requirement. Domicile requires physical presence and intent. Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Class Action Fairness Act (2005)- provides for federal diversity jurisdiction in class actions over $5 mill. In which any member of the class possesses the requisite diversity based on state or foreign itizenship

Hertz Corp. v. Friend Rule: principal place of business is where the corporations officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporations activities. Usually the headquarters. Facts: Herz employee in CA allege Hertz failed to conform to Californias wage and hours laws. Hertz try to remove to fed court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Employees say CA is principal place of business because its the main source of revenue and center of business activity. Plaintiff must prove the amount in controversy of $75,000 is likely. Using punitive damages that could result in a verdict of $75,000 is not enough. However, Supreme Ct says after meeting the diversity requirement, the federal question and amount in controversy requirements can be analyzed claim by claim. Aggregation: A single plaintiff with 2+ unrelated claims against single def. can aggregate claims to satisfy amount If 2 plaintiffs have claims against a single def, they may not aggregate if their claims are regarded as separate and distinct If 1 plaintiff meets requirement and 2nd doesnt, aggregation ok as long as its regarding same issue.

Pg. 278 Article III Section 1- Madisonian compromise Judicial power invested in supreme and inferior courts may from time to time ordain and establish. Says we will have inferior federal courts. Federal courts have very limited subject matter jurisdiction. Fewer cases heard in federal court. 90% of cases are heard in state court. Article III Section II lays out subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts. Types of cases federal courts are constitutionally authorized to hear. 2 types of subject matter jurisdiction: diversity federal questions

Congress has power to create and regulate inferior federal courts Statute 1332 Diversity of Citizenship. Need to look at the statute congress created to see what bounds and regulations of federal courts

Redner v. Sanders SDNY 2000 Bringing in action to federal court US Ct. Says hes citizen of France Def.1 resides in NY

Claiming diversity jurisdiction over this case Def 2 in NY. Def 3 corporation PPB NY Court considers redner as citizen of US. He resides in France, but hes not a citizen of France. Court says dont qualify for diversity Redners 2nd argument: hes a citizen of CA. Ct says citizenship = domicile and he has no domicile in CA. For diversity purposes, Citizen of France means having actual citizenship.

If he is a citizen of CA. But problem is the complaint claimed defendants are residents of NY, not citizens. For the corporation, it has 2 citizenships: place of principle business and its state of incorporation Domicile requires physical presence + intent to remain Ct questions whether his domicile is actually California.

Domicile exercise: Student from VA attends BLS. Plans to go back to VA to practice law. What is her domicile? Domicile is in VA because ones domicile never changes until you have physical presence in another domicile and intend to remain there. While she does have physical presence in NY, she does not have intent to stay in NY, so her domicile is VA. Student plans to return to VA, but upon graduation, she decides to stay in NY. Her domicile changes to NY If student arrived from VA with intent to stay in NY but realizes she hates NY, her domicile remains in NY because once she arrived, domicile is NY. Once she changes intent to move to VA but her physical presence in NY so her domicile remains in NY. Even is she visits VA because intent is just a visit, not to remain indefinitely. VA Student at BLS intends to go to DC. What is her domicile? Domicile remains in VA because domicile doesnt change unless both requirements are met. She doesnt have the physical presence yet in DC. NY resident intends to live in FL and is driving to FL to purchase condo. Has accident in FL Domicile is in florida because you have intent and physical presence

Intent must be voluntary. Ex. If you get sent AL in military, domicile is still NY because you didnt choose to go to AL Section 1359 cant improperly assign a party to a claim to invoke jurisdiction. Citizenship is measured at time of filing. If Redner refiles after moving to CA, diversity jurisdiction applies. If all else fails, can always bring suite in State Court because state court has general jurisdiction. Can bring to state court even if you do meet the requirements of federal court. But if case is dismissed with prejudice cant bring suit for this case every again. If Redner is from CA and def. are citizens of NY. Corporate def has place of business in NY and corporate office is in CA, is there diversity?

Strawbridge Constitution doesnt require complete diversity, but state requires complete diversity so we can amend it. Important to know where rule comes from so you know if it can be changed. Belleville v. Champaign Market Place in 7th Circuit B has Missouri citizenship. Corporation has 2 citizenships. Bs alleged to be Missouri 5 individual plaintiffs also citizens of Missouri Ch is an LLC alleging to be incorporated in DE with principle place of business in Illinois Def. brought counterclaim brought to magistrate judge who ruled for Ch Belleville appealed to 7th Circuit. 7th circuit judge says an LLC doesnt even have a place of incorporation. LLC citizenship determined by every member of the LLCs citizenship.

Also, the actual state of incorporation for Belleville is not Missouri. Bellevill is incorporated in Illinois. No diversity. Subject matter jurisdiction is never waveable regardless of what the parties want as mandated by the statute. Thurs- read Farouki case. Decided under older version of 1332

Civ Pro 8.30.13

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley (U.S. Supreme Ct 1908) Rule: well written complaint rule- suit arises under federal law when it is addressed in Plaintiffs original complaint without surplus Facts: Mottleys injured in railway accident and given lifetime passes to settle claim. Later, congress made free passes unlawful believing railroads distributed them to public officials for bribery. Pro. History: Mottleys sue in federal court based on 1331 (f. district cts have jurisdiction over all issues arising under constitution or treaties). Mottleys claim breach of contract but anticipate railroad will use new federal statute as defense, which makes this a constitutional violation of their property Fed. Trial court didnt dispute federal question and the Mottleys won. Railroad appealed to U.S. Supreme ct.. Supreme ct says there was never SMJ in the first place and the f court ruled in error. SMJ is never waveable (Belleville case). If there is no SMJ, there cannot be a verdict in federal ct. Holding: no question arising under federal law because original complaint did not raise a federal issue. A well pleaded complaint for a federal question invocation of federal SMJ must have a federal question in plaintiffs complaint. The constitutional violation claim was only surplus. Core of claim arises under breach of contract, not a federal issue. Eventually, Mottleys brought claim in state ct which ended up in Supreme ct under 1257- if there is a final judgment in a higher state court, you can appeal that decision to US Supreme ct if it has federal components regarding validity of treaties, statutes, etc. 1331 is if you want federal ct directly. Under 1257, you can get to federal by appealing to US Supreme ct if there is a federal ingredient. 1257 expands federal jurisdiction. Osborne (1824) Holding: article 3 in constitution requires only a federal ingredient. Statute 1331 is the narrower rule that requires arising under. Meaning, the statute can be changed to be broader. Federal question constitutional claim or federal statutory claim

Hypo: Boyscout leader in NJ is gay. When boyscouts find out, they revoke membership. NJ state statute says you cant discriminate based on sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation. Sue boyscouts. Leader knows their defense will be that the boyscouts is not a place of public accommodation and puts in complaint that the boyscouts NJ 1st amendment (freedom of association) defense will fail. The claim is a breach of a NJ statute. Anticipating defendants defense and putting it in complaint does not make it a well pleaded complaint. Have to file in state court. Supreme ct of NJ says boyscouts have violated leaders rights Boyscouts appeal to US Supreme ct under Article 1257 arguing the constitution was in question. Boyscouts of America v. Dale parallels Mottley because situation happened again via same mechanisms. Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co (1921 US Supreme Ct) Facts: plaintiff alleges bank violated state law allowing plaintiff to invest in only federal farm bonds. These bonds were illegal because under the federal farm act, these bonds were unconstitutional. Pro History: case was brought in federal ct. Although case is about state law and breach of fiduciary duty, US Supreme ct says this does belong in federal court because the core issue is about constitutionality of the bonds. Holding: Smith still upholds Mottley because in Mottley, federal issue was brought in by defendants claim. In Smith, federal issue is brought by plaintiffs claim. In order for plaintiff to win, he will have to prove an issue of federal claim, requiring understanding of a federal law. Rule: a state law claim can give rise to federal question jurisdiction so long as it appears from the complaint that the right to relief depends on the construction or application of the constitution or federal law Justice Holmess Test for arising under: A case arises under the law that creates the cause of action.

Holmess test does not work anymore. Smith expands standards federal jurisdiction from Holmes. Makes determining federal jurisdiction trickier.

Different from Mottley because understanding federal issue was central to the case. Mottley was more about breach of contract.

Declaratory judgment when a party is confident that he will be a defendant in a lawsuit, can move for a declaratory judgment to see what the rights and responsibilities are for the various parties. Declaratory judgment is binding. Declaratory judgment helps avoid litigation. When a party seeks a declaratory judgment, the basis for jurisdiction is what kind of lawsuit theyre anticipating. If the lawsuit wouldnt naturally arise in federal court, it cant be in federal ct. Hypo: Sony comes up with plasma tv when Panasonic has similar design. Sony is concerned upon producing tv, Panasonic will sue for breach of copyright. Sony can go to court for a declaratory judgment. Judge will say anticipated lawsuit would be a federal issue (patents are federal issues). Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson (U.S. Supreme Ct 1986) Facts: Plaintiff took Benedictin. Sued M for negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, and violation of FDA labeling requirements. Holding: Ct says this is not a federal question because an individual cant enforce federal labeling requirements. Only the govt can bring a cause of action about violating labeling requirements. Therefore, ct will only consider other parts of claim negligence, breach of warranty, etcwhich disqualifies case for federal jurisdiction. Change in landscape overtime of SMJ. Mottley (well written complaint and strict application of 1331) Osborne (federal ingredient ) Smith (if well written complaint appears federal law is central to issue ?? Exercises: p. 220 G (i.) no because claim needs to exceed $75,000

(iii) yes because its the same plaintiff and same defendant. Can aggregate the 72 and 5k to reach amount (iv) no becauase there are 2 different plaintiffs. Cant aggregate 2 plaintiffs (v) 2 different plaintiffs. With separate and distinct claims. If there is a joint interest in ownership of something. 2 plaintiffs who jointly own the property can sue 1 defendant. If theres a joint interest, dont split it up.

P. 196 hypo 1. federal claim because worker is claiming violation of federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employer says employee overstated number of hours. Case will depend on calculating # of hours worked, but its still a federal claim 2. Not a federal claim. Claim only says its libel. Plaintiffs claim doesnt address a federal issue. Even though entire case will be about the 1st Amendment, it will be in State court.

Civ Pro 9.3.13

Court of Appeals 2005)

8/26/2013 5:41:00 PM

Grable & Sons Metal products Inc., Petitioner v. Darue (on writ of certiori US Facts: IRS seized property of Grable to satisfy Gs tax delinquency. IRS gave notice of seizure and sold property to D. Although G received notice of the sale, it ddidnt exercise its statutory right to redeem the property within 180 days of sale. D received a quitclaim deed from Govt after the 180 days. Proc. History: Grable brings title action in state ct for failure to notify in exact manner according to statute. D removes case to F. District Ctt as presenting a federal question because claim depended on interpretation of notice statute in federal law. Ct granted summary judgment to D. Ct of appeals also affirmed for claim raising a federal question and implicated substantial federal interest. Ct of appeals granted certiori on the jurisdictional question. Reasoning: in certain cases federal cts have jurisdiction over state law claims that implicate significant federal issues. Graple & Sons Medal Prod v. Darue Eng (on writ of certiori US Court of Appeals 2005) 3 part test for federalized claims. Does the state law claim: Does the claim raise a federal issue actually disputed and substantial which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities