-Party attempting to invoke fed

jurisdiction [P] has burden of proving

Has the Constitution granted authority to hear the case under Art. III 2? jx is proper
-If D files 12b1 based on facts upon
Arising under' - suit directly stems from Const, federal laws, or a treaty. -Admiralty law with SMJ is based, ct does not have
Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls - -B/w different states to presume P's allegations true - can
U.S. govt is a party -B/w citizens of diff. states look at other evidence [Hawkins]
B/w a state & citizens of another state -Constitution - bare diversity [at least
-B/w state [or citizens thereof] & foreign states [& their citizens] one claimant diverse in citizenship
For purposes of supplemental jurisdiction, constitutional basis is that Art. III from another] - Congress can
grants authority over cases not claims; thus endpoint jx for each claim not authorize fed ct to hear cases
necessary. without complete diversity
Has Congress actually conveyed jurisdiction in a statute? [Each claim must meet at least ONE].

Necessary to get into federal court
Federal Question 1331
1331 - dist cts have original jx
over all civil actions arising
under Constitution or fed law
1. What is the claim?
Is there a federal issue on the
face of the claim -
Well-pleaded
complaint/Mottley -
-Look ONLY at claim, not
possible defenses or rebuttal -
complaint not
is P enforcing aederal right?
in anticipation
-Federal element must be part
of Ps complaint, original
statement of P's COA must
show based on Cnst/Fed law -
look for when
state D directly violated a
provision of fed law.
-Fed ct cannot have jx just
-Creation test
because the D might use a
- look at body
fed law or Const to defend!!
- Creation Test [Gunn] - is
claim/COA created by fed.
law? Is source of P's
enforceable legal right against jx; if fed law -
D federal law? [not state K or
torts claims]
-Substantial Fed. Issue Test -
applies not in anticipation of claim - clearly
fed defenses but federal issue
embedded in state clam
1)claim necessarily raises
federal issue 2. federal issue [quite narrow
actually disputed 3) federal
issue is substantial 4) fed jx
won't disturb balance of
fed/state judicial reponsibilities
-Gunn - fed issue but be
substantial to fed system as a
whole not just merely
substantial to the case
- Burden on P to show claim is
either federally provided
private act or includes an
issue which rests on a
substantial fed question.
-D cannot take P's state claim
to fed court because
counter-claim is federal
-D cannot remove to fed court
most of time - state courts
usually have power to hear
fed claims [concurrent jx]
-NOTE - rule 8a1 - complaint
must have short statement of
grounds for SMJ
Diversity 1332
1332 - amount in controversy must exceed
75k [75k + $.01] & complete diversity
MOTTLEY -
If multiple [related or unrelated] claims by same
tells us look
P against single D - P may aggregate claims
at face of
If multiple Ps in suit against single D - cannot
well-pleaded
aggregate if claims "separate & distinct"
complaint,
statement of
P1 >75k, P2 < 75k --> same D - P1 can sue in
Ps own
fed ct, P2 can join if claim arises out of same
case or controversy [supp jx]
Counterclaims - if P > 75k, compulsory may be
of fed
heard regardless; permissve requires ind jx
defense.
basis
What do we
Complete diversity - no P and D may be
domiciled in same state at time suit is filed
looking at
-Domicile [individual] - physical presence [you,
this?
your belongings] + intent to remain there
indefinately [not on vacay] [Hawkins]
-Domicile for corp - state of incorporation &
of law
PPB [nerve center - Hertz - look to place where
creating
corp. officers direct, control, cordinate corp
COA, if state
activities]
law - no fed
Individuals -
-Alien v. alien - can't be heard
fed jx.
- Alien admitted to U.S. w permanent resident
-State law
status is citizen of state where he is domiciled
imbedded
[MO resident + perm. resident alien in MO = no
within fed
DJ]
created by
-Citizens of a state & citizens of foreign state
state laq but -U.S. citizen domiciled abroad - not citizen of
fed q inside any state, not alien - can't be used for DJ
& meant to Partnerships/unincorporated associations - not
be!] entities, collection of individuals
-Look at citizenship of all members. 18 partners
from 18 states - partnership is a member of
each. Law firm in NY w/ partners in NY, NJ, CT
--> D [CT] - partnership, citizen of state of all
partners, no DJ
-When measuring citizenship for DJ - look at
date complaint filed in fed ct, even if P moved
to anotheer state solely to est. DJ
-Legal rep of estate of decedent - citizen of
same state as decedent [1332c2]
-Legal rep of infants/incompents - citizen of
same state as infant/incompetant
-Class actions -
DJ over any where amount exceeds 5 mil +
any member of class of Ps citizen of state diff
from any D [some exceptions]
Claims of individual class members shall be
aggregated to determine whether matter in
controversy exceeds sum/value of 5 mil
-Injunction - est value of injunction
-NOTE Congress could change 1332 to include
min diversity where diversity among Ps but not
Ds
Adding a claim without own fed
jurisdiction
Supplemental 1367
-DOES NOT GET CASE IN, ONLY
CLAIM - every claim needs SMJ - 1367
essentially extends supp. jx to
constitutional limits to add state claim to
fed claim in same case.
-allows parties to dispute who otherwise
don't have valid jx basis or add claims
w/o independent fed jx. basis
-Gets additional claims that don't meet
fed q or DJ in fed ct - at least 1 claim in
fed ct on own merits [fq or DJ]
- 1367 [a] - do federal & state claims
arise from "same nucleus of operative
fact" so that they are the same case or
controversy [Gibbs]? [same depositions,
evidence?]
-DIVERSITY EXCEPTION 1367 [b]
-If SMJ in P's initial claims solely based
on DJ - no supp jx over claims by
PLAINTIFFs against persons made
parties under via R14, 19, 20, or 24 if
supp jx would defeat diversity.
[Kroger - cannot circumvent complete
diversity by amending complaint to add
2nd, non-diverse D - complete div
between all parties, initial or 3rd parties
later impleaded]
-1367[c]- Courts have discretion to deny
supp jx, may do so if [Gibbs] -
- Claim raises novel or complex issue of
state law; state claim substantially
predominates over fed claims, fed
claims dismissed or resolved & only
state remains, exceptional
circumstances w/ other compelling
reasons to decline - maybe hearing
claims together will confuse jury
1367d - tolling of SOL when claim
dismissed in fed ct
For every claim in fed court ask -
does this claim invoke fed q or
diversity?
If no - does at least one claim invoke
fed q or DJ?
If yes - is state claim related to that
federal claim - common nucleus of
operative fact?
-No to both - are two claims separate
& distinct COA - no fed jx over state
claim
Fed ct has original jx, could've been
brought to fed ct originally but P chose
state
Removal
1441 - governing removal statute, 1446 -
If court erroneously fails to
procedure for removal
remand for lack of SMJ - at
Ability of D to move a case P filed in state court
long as ct has SMJ at time
to fed dist ct when fed ct also had jurisdiction
of judgment, its ok that at
-No such thing as removal from fed to state
time of filing, removal
-P can never remove even on counterclaim
improper - failure to
-If P wants to challenge removal, can move to
remand doesn't require
remand to state ct
judgment be vacated
1441- if P could've orignally brought suit in fed
-Caterpillar - improper
court under SMJ, D has the right to remove the
removal stands if - 1) ct
case to the dist court in state initial claim was
had proper power at trial;
brought, unless rules below provide otherwise
2) efficiency; 3) finality; 4)
-Diversity removal -1441b2 - If sole bases for
demand on ct; diversity at
fed jx is diversity, D may not remove on DJ
time judgment entered
basis if any of the Ds are citizens of the state in
rather than time case
which the action was brought. Diversity
removed is appropriate
determined at time suit filed
time to examin if complete
-If any D is citizen of forum st of fed ct, no
diversity existed
removal.
-Diversity case can never
1441c - if case in st ct has claim arising under
be removed if its been
federal law joined w state claims that don't
more than 1 year since
invoke original or supp jx, entire case can be
action commenced
removed to fed, where fed ct shall sever such
-Can only remove to fed ct
claims & remand them back to state ct
that embraces that of the
-1441f - fed ct to which case is removed can
state court - cannot
hear removed case even if state ct from which
remove to other districts
removed had no jx
-A motion to remove could
1446b -
bring case to fed ct & D
-D must file notice to remove within 30 days of
immediately could move to
receipt of P's claim
dismiss for lack of PJ
-all Ds properly joined & served must consent
to removal
-If D served at diff times and later served D files
notice of removal, any earlier served-D may Removal clock restarts
consent to removal even tho he didn't initiate or when party drops
consent previously - 30 days starts over with creating diversity or fed
each newly served D! ques is added.
-If case initially not removable but becomes 1446C1 - if removing
removable, notice of removal must be filed based on diversity &
within 30 days after D receives amendment under b3, but more
showing case has become removable than one year after
[case not removable bc lack of complete commencement of
diversity but settlement between P & action, can no longer
non-diverse D - can now remove if < 1 yr] remove. Disfavoring
-1446c - Case based on DJ can't be removed diversity.
over 1 year after commencing action unless P
acted in bad faith to prevent a D from removal
[strategically delaying settlment to prevent
removal]
-DJ removal ok if court finds by preponderance
of evidence the amount >75k
1447 - motion to remand on basis of anything
other than lack of SMJ must be made within 30
days after filing notice of removal
-if anytime before final judgment appears fed ct
lacks SMJ, case shall be remanded
-order remanding to state NOT reviewable on
appeal
-if after removal P seeks to join additional Ds
whose joinder would destroy SMJ, court may
deny joinder or permit & remand to state ct