Defines the constitutional scope of the subject matter jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Federal courts can hear:

(1) federal questions

(2) diversity jurisdiction

Federal courts have jurisdiction of all civil actions that pertain to federal laws

Really means Tax, Labor Law, Securitites, Patent, Environmental

More Restrictive than Art III

District courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where amount in contest exceeds $75,000, and

(1) citizens of different states

(2) citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state

(c)(1):A corporation is a citizen of:

(1) it's place of incorporation

(2) it's principle place of business

(c)(2): Executor is a citizen of the state of the decedent she represents

Summary Judgment over subject matter jurisdiction

12(h)(3) - dismission based on no subject matter jurisdiction.

-No deadline to make claim. Can even be declared on appeal.

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.

12(b)(6) - failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Person remains a domicilary of a state until:

(1) Takes up residence in another state (domicile)

and

(2) Intends to reamin there indefinitely

In case: most important factor was that she was not going to return to her domicilary

Do not lose old domicile until you aquire a new one. 

Place of person's true, fixed and permanet home and principle establishment and to which the person has the intention of returning whenever absent from.

Citizenship is determined at the date of the filing of complaint

Complete diversity of all ∏s from all Δs

Established the meaning of 'principle place of business

Prior: 

Nerve Center Test: Where the business officers direct, control, and coordinate all activities

Corporate Muscle Test: business conducts bulk of its activities

Total Activity Test - total synthesis of NCT and CMT

Current:

Nerve Center Test: direct control and coordinate  

considered to be citizens of every state in which their members are domiciled

7th Circuit: does not recognize between corporation or entity.

All the Same (possibly 2nd circuit as well)

Sum of ∏'s controls is made in good faith

Unless it appears to a legal certainty that the ∏ could not recover that (jurisdictional) amount.

-presumption is in ∏'s favor.

Aggrigating Claims

+

28 U.S.C. 1367

∏ may put together seperate claims against any single Δ to meet the amount in controversy

2nd Δ may piggy back on first to meet the amount in controversy

Adair v. Lease Partners, Inc.

(Mottley)- well-pleaded complaint must be central to ∏'s claim

Federal question must  be in ∏'s complaint

Elements of claim not defenses

Complaint cannot be used for anticipating the Δ's defense

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity or federal Question

(what does it do)

SMJ - protects the boundaries between the state and federal courts

1331 granted powers to the lower federal courts as Art III § 2 did not vest them powers

-1331 ensures that the lower federal courts will not be undermined by the state courts

-Mottley/Holme's Test: must focus on the claims in the ∏'s complaint not potential defenses to Δ

Smith and Merril Dow split

Case based on a state law claim can arise under Federal law if the ∏'s case turns on an important federal issue.

Federal agency regulations do not create a private cause of action against parties who fail to meet the federal standards.

Grable

∏ must establish a substantial issue of federal law in order to recover on its state law claim.

Bright Line Rule

qualifies for federal question jurisdiction even if the claim is invalid on the merits. Federal court must dismiss for failure to state a claim (FRCP 12(b)(6)), not for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Some casese may be heard in State court as well as Federal court

Federal removal statutes have authorized Δs sued in state court to remove certain cases to federal court

(take case out of state court adn refile it in federal court)

Removal: allows the Δ to have the option to move to federal court

any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United sates have original jurisdiction*, may be removed by the Δ or the Δs, to the district court of the US for the same geographic area.

*court's power to hear and decide a case before any appellate review

Δ must remove from State into Federal within 30 days of receiving complaint. 

If not originally removed, and later beomes removable, Δ has thirty days from that point

Claim lacking SMJ filed in Federal Court.

What happens?

Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the U.S. Constitution shall be removable without regard to citizenship of the parties.

Any other action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.

When there are multiple Δs in a case, if even just one is a citizen of the state where the lawsuit was filed, a ∏ can successfully object to removal if the only basis for federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.

Claim has SMJ and the Plaintiff filed in State court, what could happen?

∏ waives objection to an improper removal by failing to file a motion to remand within 30 days after a Δ files its notice of removal

∏ waives its objection to removal by acquiescing in the Federal courts Jurisdiction

-Agrees to federal courts jurisdiction when it undertakes affirmative action in such a court.

28 U.S.C. § 1450

(Removal of Diversity Cases)

Procedure for Removal and Remand (summed up)

Removal

Who?

When?

Where?

How?

Motion to Remand

Removal

Who: Only the Δ

When: 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b): thirty days

Where: 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a): Same geographic area

How: 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a): Specify grounds in motion

Motion to remand

28 U.S.C. 1447(c): ∏ objects to removal (not removable or improper procedure)

Personal Jurisdiction (Summary)

Power that a court has over an individual party

Required whenever a judgment is sought that would impose an obligation on a Δ personally

When such exists, the court has the authority to issue a judgment aagainst the party, personally, which can be satisfied by the the seizure of all of the party's assets

-judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in other states.

In Personam Jurisdiction Basis

Voluntary Presence

Domicile

Consent

Contacts

In Personam Jurisdiction Basis

Voluntary Presence

-If Δ is voluntarily present in the forum state and is served with process while there, the state will have personal jurisdiction over the Δ

Exceptions

(1) ∏ fraudulently brings Δ into state to serve process, service is most likely invalid.

(2) Passing through state to avoid other judicial proceedings

In Personam Jurisdiction Basis

Domicile

Jurisdiction where the person is domiciled

place where the person maintains as her permanent home.

if person has legal capacity, her domicile is the place she has chosen through presence, couple with the intention to make that place her home.

In Personam Jurisdiction Basis

Consent

∏'s consent to personal jurisdiction by filing lawsuit

- Δ -

Express consent: Party's express consent to the jurisdiction of local courts serves as sufficent basis for in personam jurisdiction (contract or appointment of agent)

Implied Consent: When a state had substantial reason to regulate the in-state activity of a nonresident of the state, it may provide that by engaging in such activities, the nonresident thereby appoints a designated state official as his agent for service of process

Voluntary Appearance: other than a special appearance to contest jurisdiction

In Personam Jurisdiction Basis

Contacts

Due Process is satisfied if the non-resident Δ has certain minimum contacts wiwth the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substanital justice

Minimum Contacts: International Shoe requires Δ to have "minimum contacts"

Ct. can hold PJ over someone as long as that person (1) resides in the control of the ct., (2) has a representative that does, (3) is connected to the ct's jurisdiction through the nature, quality, and amount of activities in the jurisdiction, or (4) enjoys the benefits and protections of the ct's jurisdiction in regards to its activities

(1) certain minimum contacts

(2) Foreseeability

(3) Fair Play and Substantial Justice

Δ's contact with forum must result from purposeful Availment with the forum

-Contacts cannot be accidental

-Δ must reach out to forum in some way

Merely placing an item in the stream of commerce is not a sufficient basis

Intentional Targeting=Purposeful Availment

As long as a participant in this process is aware that hte final product is being marketed in the forum state, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise

Fair play and substantial justice also needs to be used to determine if court has jurisdiction

Placing an item in the stream of commerce, plus some other act that shows the intent to serve a particular state is a sufficient basis

Modifying product to comply with state law or maintaing a sales office in the state

In Rem Jurisdiction - Authority of a court to determine issues concerning rights in real or personal property

Due Process - Property must be present in forum state

-Notice must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of hte action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.

Specific:

When a cuase of action arises out of or closely relates to a Δ's contact with the forum state, jurisdiction may be warranted even if that contact is the Δ's only contact with the forum state

-minimum contacts

General:

When a cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the Δ's contacts with the forum, jurisdiction will be warranted only when the Δ's contacts wit hteh state have been systematic and continuous