-1SubjectMatter Jdx (all congressional codifications of Constitutional of power given to

Congress in Article II, Section 2)Subject matter cannot be waived & an open issue

Arising under
Article 3, Section 2: federal law important ingredient in case
Section 1331: arises under fed law if appends in plaintiff complaint: cause
of action create by fed law OR plaintiff cause of action might be based by
state law must necessarily raise a substantial actually disputed federal
issue (grabel & Sons)
Well pleaded complaint rule: clear form face of plaintiffs complaint tht
there is indeed a fed question and canno be based on fed law defense or
anticipatory defense
Supplemtan Jdx
- have a claim w/in lawusit for which you have basis for traditional
fed subject jdx (arising udner or diversity) and if there is a direct
relaitonship between that claim & additional suppl claim but for
there isn’t a basis os traditional subject matter jdx, if they have a
truly reltionship to comprise 1 consitutional case then you can have
them heard together (united mine workers v. Gibbs)
- In diversity based cases it can be sometimes be limted by 1367(b)
only applies to divest court of jdx when all 4 factors are satisfied
1. Orginal claim founded on jdx
2. Claim for which yhou would like to use must be claim
brought by original plaitniff
3. Claim for suppl jdx must be brought against a perosn
made party under specified rules
4. You can sue in federal court (??)
Exercise of supple extremely discretionary (not right)
1367c
-fed claims dismissed before trial, suppl also
dismissed
- state cliams dismissed if state issues substantially
predominates or jury confused by issues raised
-Other exception/extraordinary circumstances (cnat
use just to clear docket)
- discretion remains open throughout case
Exoon mobil: 1367 to fold in everyone else
Diversity:
Section 1332: complete diversity of citizenship and amount of controversy
A1: citizens of differ states
A2: (alienage) no aliens on
A3: 2 Us citizens on each side of lawsuit and then aliens can be
added and disregarded
A4: foreign state is suing as plaintiff (foreign corporations if own
government owns have of shares and principle place of business is
outside the US)
 Complete diversity at time complaint is filed (if suit was removed
to fed court then complete diversity at time of removal)
Jdx unaffected by subsequent changes of citizenship and burden of
proof on person person cliaming federal jdx
Person citizen of state of domicile (residence plus state to remain
indefinitely)- Person retains old domicile into they acuire new one
Its ok to change domicile for diversity jdx but must be bonafide
intent (no intent to reurn back home when suit is done)
Corporation: (1332(c)) (look at nerve center test: where
headquarters are at)
Partnership is citizenships of each and everyone of its partners
Unincorporated association (labor union) citizenship of all
members
LPRs are citizens of state where they are domicile
1339: someone named soley to creat jdx but no real/substantial
interest in lawsuit then citizenship is disregarded
Parties may be relained by court when there is no actual substantial
party between parties that will put them in opposite sides
Amount in controversy: $75,000 (look at plaintiffs good faith
claim- must appear to legal certainty that claim is for less than jdx
amount; will control unless as a matter of law they cannot collect
jdx amount)
Plaintiff seeks non monetary relief (declaratory/injunction), we still
must ascribe a value for jdx amount à value to plaintiff and loss
to defendant
Installment payemnts: only amount due at time of lawsuit is
commence is taking into accoun to determine jdx amount even if
that judgment might detemrine liability for future (unless right for
all payments is in issue at time lawsuit is commences)
No aggregation of claims (exception: plaintiff may aggrgate all
claims against a single def even if they are unrelated; Congress
said claim of all class members can be added together to apply to
amount in controversy in class lawsuits)
Intent in excluding interest is to preven delaying of lawsuit in order
to accumlate enough to satisfy amount
Section 1335 (statutory interpleader) 2 $500 or more

Supplemental Jdx

Jdx to detemrine Jdx

If jdx of fed court, court has power to determine that issue, but before they issue it
they can issue temporary orders as injucntions/restrining order
Give court power to preserve status quao
Parties must obey order (order must have merits)

Direct v. Collateral Attack (not both)

 Direct: attack jdx at original lawsuit
Collateral attack: defualt jdx and wiats and challenges when it is tryiong to be
enforced

State courts may probate/divroce

Removal (creature of statue, Section 1441, 1446, 1447)

- an action brought in state court can be removed by def to fed court if the action
originally could have been brought in fed court
- notce of removal under fed court, written notice to adverse party, def file notice
with clerk of state court (don’t let state court know then concurrent jdx)
File pettiton of removal within 30 days, if they ca remove due to no basis of fed
jdx (if you cannot initially remove then circumstances change 30 days window
briefly reopen - ex. plaintiff amends complaint to add new fed law claim or dimsis
non diversity party)
If based on diversity removal must be less than one year when claim was filed
(not if based on arisin under)
Improperly removed: remanded back to state court (all def named and served
must agree to removal unless statutory exception (FDIC, Red Cross)
improperly filed in state cour: it is dismissed (no removal to state court exisst)
Removal of class acitons per Clas acitons fiarness act:
-takes aways 3 diversity based limitation based on 1446
- class action being removed & satisfied class action fairness no 1 yr limit
for diversity based removal, remove if 1 def is not out os state, can remove
even if not lal agree
1446c (separate and independent claim) ??? Finn case

Defension premetion: fed premtion is adefense (fed law defeats state law claim, but it is a
defnese
Complete preemtpion: trnaformation that changes character; only well pleaded complaint
is one arising under (1. Fed law must establish a federal preemption defense to any state
ight of action 2. Fed law must establish exclusive cause of action)
- usuary claims
- nuclear accidetns
- benefits claim under arrisa
- Breaches of labor contracts

Venue (stautory) 1391

Which fed judicial district is appropriate
Chllanges can be waived
(a) all defs reside OR (b) substantial based of claims occurred
(c) venue for corporation only when they are defs
Forign defendant & claim outside (exception)??
Def moves changes of venue must make strong case for transfer (appropriate
venue does not occur where the action might have been brought if def consented)
1406: dismissal due to improer venue OR tranfer to proper venue (court discretion
 Transferee court must apply law in original transferor court
Differ judicial district within US

Form non convenious

Want to tranfer case out of country
Fed courts; only apply when trying to refile case in forgeign country
When grant, pending lawsuit in US fed court it is dismissed
Gilbert factors
Availability of proof, arability of personal jdx, let jury see certain
premises, practical problem of trial, and plaintiffs interest
- less deseriable law not given substantial weight, but can be considered
when alternate country has

Justiciability
Must be justifiable controvery (not hypo or academi or moot)
Judicially create dlimits on fed courts power
Issues are detemine anytime in litigation
Political questions (seperation of powers: only left is impeachment) on
justifiability, but amere fact that lawsuits want aot protect poloical right
then not political question
Standing: personal stake in outcome of litigation (inury likely rederes by
favorable decision & cuasal conenction of injury and what def did)
Constitutional (1. Plaitniff must allage suffer. Or will immenntely
suffer injury 2. Opantifss fairly traceable to defs conduct 3. Palitnff
must allege fav court decision will redress injury) and prudential
components(1. Allege injury falls within zone of interest protecte
dbu statue or const provision at isse 2. Compain raises anstacet
question more porpely by other brnaches 3. Own legal riughts and
interst)à 3rd parties are allowed
Mootness: issue no longer live (case is now too late)
- party no longer personal state in controvery OR legal issue in
dispute might not be reviewable anymore
Ripeness: fitness (1. claim imnvoles uncertain events that might not end
up occurring 2. How musch dirrect of immediate eharm will happen if
case not heard)
Advisory opinons: actual parties w/opposing positions

Fed declaratory judgemnt Act (seek this as premetive move so parties switch positions)
- require there be an actual controvery between real parties
- parties cannot use Act as basis for fed subject jdx (parties must demonstarte it
independently)
- well pleaded complaint rule: court ask whether the case could be brough tin fed
court (regardless of getting remedy)
- plaintiffs potential remedy would have fed judx

Anti-Injucntion Act
 Fed injucntiosn to stop state proceedings generally are barred

Abstention (fed court has subject matter jdx, no justifiability isseus, but court still
decliens ot proceed in order to avoid needless conflcit w/state law)
- judicially crewated, self imposed limitations, and create aclash between
federalism and sepration of powers
- requires unique or exceptional cicrumtances because the facts that proceedings
are pending simulations in state and fed court don’t matter
1. Pullman absention: appropriate when a state ocurt detemrination of an
issue of state law will affect or avoid the need to decide a federal
consitutional law issue (if it is applied, the fed proceeidn gis tayed pending
state ocurt decidion) appropriate if: 1. Fed consitutional chllanger 2.
Ambigious/uncertain issue of state law 3. State law involes important stat
efucntion 4. Stta elaw issue must be susceptible to construciton that will
elimite need to decided fed cons issue or materially alter the way the fed
court will view constitutional issue
2. Burford Absention (admin): when adjudiaiton of difficult issues of state
law will threathen to disript state policy (to use it there must be an
entanglement of fed claims in state law) - absention due to complex state
admin proceedings; stat emust have establish some mechinasm for
handlung important state issue AD fed court involvement will pose a risk
by interfering that mechinaism (does not require uncertain state law!) (fed
proceeding dismissed) We want to avoid needless conflict with admin of
state of its own affairs - only be used when fed proceeding will disrupt
complex scheme that state develop when delaing with important state
issue
3. Colorado River absention: (desire to avoid duplicate litigation)
abstention justified if exceptional circumstances test is met (look at five
factors 1. Whether either court first asume jdx over real property 2.
Whether fed forum is inconvenient 3. Avoidance of piecemeal litigation 4.
Order in which jdx was obtained 5. Presence of fed issue (will fed law
previal)) Mere difficulty in determining state law does nto justify to stay
or dismiss proceedings - if lawsuit is one sekeing declaratory relief, the
language of act gives distrcit courts discreiton whether to hear case & can
defer to pending state ocurt proceedings Wilton)
4. Rocker Fellman doctrine: an appeal of state court judgemnt to seek cert
in US Supreme Court rather than an appeal in fed district court: applies
when looser in state court proeedings seeks to have a fed court overturn
that state court judgment (limited to situation when sttae ocurt judgetment
rendered before fed proceedings commenced) - it precludes jdx

Erie doctrine
Federal court is heairng state law based claim, follow state susbtantive law and
fed proceedure law
Looking to keep at minumu the different outcome in state and federal court
1. Fed court must be heairng state law claim
 2. Must besome sort of competing state/fed provision
1. Is the issue one of purely substantive law? Yes=fed court applied
state law - Less clearà 2. Is the competing federal provision an
actual fed rule then don’t stay in rules of deciison act (going to
take a rules enabling act anaylsis, which is: Hanna v, Pumer use
fed rule unless it was not properly promegated= it menas fed must
be followed, but if both proviisns peacefully coexist then it must
follow both Walker and Reagan case

Create fed common law to preserve (1. Does the matter justify creating fed matter law? 2.
If it is develop, court must determine whether to create new rules or adopt existing state
law

Class Actions
Representative (source of due process protection for absent class members) and
aggregate
B3 class actions

1st Question
1. Challanage to removal/federal subject matter jdx

2. Chllange to proceeding as a class acion

3. Moton to abstain

4. Motion to certify questions

2nd Question

1. Federal subject matter jdx

2. Justiciability

3. Declarsatory Judgment Act

4. Venue

5. Actions pending in both federal and state courts