SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION - University of …管辖权-大学…

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONIntroduction to Jurisdiction1. Jurisdiction: Power of a court to Adjudicate a case (hear, decide, issue an order, force parties to obey an order)2. Federal Courts Jurisdictiona. Courts of Limited Jurisdictionb. Article III: Provides jurisdictional power; legislative grant is necessary to convey that power to the courtsc. Jurisdiction is Limited to:i. Federal Questions ( 1331)ii. Diversity Cases ( 1332)iii. Admiralty & Maritime cases ( 1333)iv. Bankruptcy ( 1334)v. Commerce & Antitrust ( 1337)vi. Patents & Copyrights ( 1338)3. Supreme Court Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. 1251)a. (a) Original & Exclusive jurisdiction:i. Controversies between Two or more States b. (b) Original but Not exclusive jurisdiction (concurrent):i. Ambassadors or other Ministers of Foreign Statesii. Controversies between U.S. & a Stateiii. Proceedings by a State against Citizens of another State or Aliensc. Writs of certiorari (discretionary jurisdiction)Subject Matter Jurisdiction Introduction1. SMJ: Extent to which a court can rule of the Conduct of Persons or the Status of Things; over the Nature of the Case & Type of Relief sought2. SMJ goes to the Heart of the Authority of the courta. Founders were wary of centralizing power, so federal courts are courts of limited jurisdictionb. Can Not be Waived by parties: SMJ is present or notc. Rule 12(h)(3): Lack of SMJ can be noted at Any Time during a proceeding (by suggestion of parties or noticed by the court sua sponte) and the court shall dismiss the case.d. EXCEPTION Des Moines case: Did Not allow Collateral Attack for lack of SMJ because the case had Already Run through Appeal to SCOTUS3. Capron v. Van Noorden (SCOTUS 1804)a. State law action brought in district ct.b. Defendant won in district courtc. Plaintiff appealed citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction (no diversity)d. SCOTUS dismissed case for lack of SMJ (procedural grounds; not on the merits)e. Burden of establishing SMJ is on the plaintiff (Rule 8(a): Pleading Must include a Statement of the Grounds for jurisdiction). P stated Ds citizenship, but not his own.f. Main Point: Even where the parties to a suit brought in federal court appear & consent to the courts diversity jurisdiction, if no actual diversity of citizenship exists, the court has no power to hear the case.4. Marbury v. Madison (SCOTUS 1803)a. P= Marbury who is trying to seek his commission as magistrate of the Justice of the Peace and D (Secretary of State) supposed to deliver commissionsb. Federal Law (Judiciary Act of 1789) gave SCOTUS Original jurisdiction over Mandamus Actions (Note: Under 1361, district courts Now have original jurisdiction). Marshall declares this unconstitutional.c. Court rules that the Statutory Grant of Authority Exceeded the Courts Constitutional power of jurisdictioni. Article III, 2 determines the constitutional scope of the judiciarys power- does Not include writs of mandamus in list of cases of original jurisdictionii. Follows the concept of expresio unius est exclusivo alterius: To say one thing is to Exclude all others (Negative Pregnant). Marshall reads Art III as “S Ct shall have original J over these and nothing else.” WAX says this is inherently wrong.iii. 1251- Gives original jurisdiction to other courts also. Represents an overt repudiation of the logic of Marbury v. Madison. Diversity Jurisdiction1. Article III, 2: Gives federal courts jurisdiction over “controversies between the citizens of different states”a. 28 U.S.C. 1332 is the Statutory Grant of this Authorityb. Statutory grant does Not reach the Full Limits of Article III:i. Amount in Controversy Requirement: Greater than $75,000 (to a legal certainty)1. Rules of Aggregation: Refers to the adding together of multiple claims between two identical parties. A asserts a claim against B. They are diverse. The claim is worth $50,000. Then A adds another claim worth $50k. By aggregation, this entire lawsuit can go into federal court.ii. Complete Diversity Rule: No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant (Judicially Constructed Rule: Strawbridge v. Curtis, SCOTUS) 1332(a)1. citizens of different states2. citizens of a State and citizens of foreign state3. citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties4. a foreign state as P and citizens of a state or different states2. Citizenship is Determined by Domicile (Unique Federal Meaning):a. A person is domiciled Where he is Found & Where he Intends to Remain i. In cases where these conflict, Domiciled = where you are Last domiciledb. Corporations ( 1332(c):i. Citizen of a State where it is Incorporated, and:ii. Citizen of a State where it has its Principle Place of Business (Just One Place: “Nerve Center” or “Muscles” tests- headquarters or where most of the manufacturing or main goals of the business are done)c. A Resident Alien is deemed a citizen of state where he is domiciledd. Diversity is determined at Time Complaint is Filed & is Not affected by subsequent changes in domicile of parties3. Mas v. Perry (5th Cir. 1974)a. Invasion of Privacy; 2-way mirror caseb. Defendant appeals on ground of lack of SMJc. Plaintiffs: Husband was a citizen of France, & wife= citizen of Mississippi. Under common law, unity of citizenship states upon marriage wife takes the citizenship of husband. His wife would also be considered a citizen of France & thus a citizen of no state. She would be unable to sue (outside the reach of 1332)d. Court Suspends Common Law Rule: When one member of the couple is an alien and not domiciled in a stat, they will suspend the rule of unity of citizenship.e. Main Point: Mere residence in a state does not establish domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdictionFederal Question Jurisdiction1. Article III, 2: Gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases “Arising Under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, & Treaties”a. 28 U.S.C. 1331 is the Statutory Grant of this Authorityb. Question as to What Constitutes “Arising Under” (see below)c. Statutory grant came in 1875, for these reasons:i. To encourage Uniformity of Interpretation of federal lawii. Federal judges are seen as More Qualified/Greater Expertiseiii. Provide for Vindication of Federal Rights Unpopular in some states1. Note: Grant came after Civil War w/recognition of southern State Court resistance in enforcing new federal civil rights statutes2. Scope of Constitutional “Arising Under” Power: Scope of Statutory Authority is Less than Constitutional Allowancea. Creation/Cause of Action Theory (Justice Holmes)i. Case “arises under” federal law Only If federal law Creates cause of action- the federal law gives you the right to sue and gives you the right to remedy and reliefii. Jurisdiction if the Source of Ps enforceable legal right against D is federal lawiii. Very Limited view of “arising under” powerb. Ingredient Theory/“But For” Test (Justice Marshall)i. A case “arises under” federal law If “But For” the federal law, there would not be jurisdiction (Federal Law Must Convey Constitutional power)ii. More Expansive than Holmes (too expansive)iii. Osborn v. Bank of the US (SCOTUS 1824)1. Congress expressly given power to the Bank to sue & be sued2. Federal law is an Ingredient Making the Suit against the bank Possible (“but for” federal law, would not have bank)c. Meaning & Application Theory:i. A case “arises under” federal law or the Constitution if a federal law or the Constitution Must Be Interpreted or Applied by the court in the course of resolving a caseii. Flows from the Need for Expertise/Uniformity in Interpreting federal lawiii. Harms v. Eliscu (2nd Cir. 1964)1. Court rules that there is No “arising under” jurisdiction2. This case deals with Copyright law, but is in reality more of a Contracts case3. Matter of contract & title under state law, Not Infringement under Federal Copyright Act4. Under Ingredient Theory, jurisdiction would have been allowed because copyright created by federal law, but under the Creation Test or under the Meaning & Application Test, there is no basis for jurisdiction5. Ingredient Test has been rejected as an appropriate interpretation of “arising under” jurisdiction (too expansive). Osborne did not need 1331 to have J, Congress specifies jurisdictional grant (sue and be sued) & that is enough.6. Main Point: The proper forum to hear a case is the one having Control Over the Laws that Created the cause of actiond. Smith v. Kansas City Title (SCOTUS 1921)i. Cause of Action was State-Created (Securities law)- law for shareholders to sue corporations, the illegality being the corp. is unable to invest in unlawful securities.ii. However, a Determination of the Constitutional Validity of a Federal law was Necessary to Answer the state law questions (Meaning & Application Test)- were the binds issued in violation of federal constitution?iii. Such a federal claim must Not be “Merely Colorable,” but Must Rest “upon a Reasonable Foundation” (Substantial Federal Issue)e. Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co (SCOTUS 1934)i. Similar situation to Smith: Federal law issue must be resolved in determining the state law claim (P brought suit under Kentucky Liability Act which required looking at Federal Safety Appliance Act to determine negligence)ii. Here, however, the Court holds this is Not a basis for jurisdictioniii. Consensus is that Smith & Moore Cannot be Reconciled (there is a distinction with no difference- Smith= construction and Moore= application): the inconsistent rules have been Superceded by Merrell Dowf. Merrell Dow v. Thompson (SCOTUS 1986)i. Bendectin/birth defect case including allegations that drug was misbranded in violation of Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Actii. Plaintiffs (several foreign nationals) sue Merrell Dow in state court; Merrell Dow removes the case to federal court on basis that federal standard was at issue; plaintiffs object on grounds of no SMJiii. SCOTUS creates a New Theory of Meaning & Application Test:1. Federal jurisdiction applies if there is an Independent Cause of Action for the Underlying Federal Question or Claim. Two types of causes of action:a. Express cause of action- specifically says in the act this person can sue and lists remedies ie Civil Rights Actb. Implied cause of action- (arise with positive law) when you have federal statutes or enactments or the Constitution where you have a right without a remedy. Must look if intended to single out the group of people. Here, the act says the FDA should oversee the production of labels and gives some enforcement rights to the agency, BUT nowhere talks of the injuries that may result to people for their non-compliance. See implied remedy. 2. If there is no independent cause of action on federal source of law, there is No Basis for federal jurisdiction3. Do not necessarily need to sue on this question, but Must have a Possible, Independent Causeiv. In this case, there is No independent federal law claim under the FDCA, so no basis for federal jurisdiction1. Congress did Not Intend that a Private Right of action would be created by FDCAv. This case comes under a lot of controversy because decision is only in accord with one of the reasons for giving SMJ to federal courts for federal causes of action- protecting individual rights. No individual rights to be protected here.vi. Main Point: Incorporation of a federal standard in a state law private action, when that standard Creates No Federal Right of Action, does Not confer federal question jurisdiction3. “Well Pleaded Complaint” Rule:a. Federal question jurisdiction must exist from the cause of action itself, Not from Anticipated Defensesb. A complaint must be “Well-Pleaded,” that is State the Cause of Action & Not try to plead defenses, Leaving that for the Defendantc. Court looks at what the plaintiff Must establish as part of her cased. Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley (SCOTUS 1908)i. P issued free pass for life by D in return for not suing on a tort claim. P filed suit when D wouldnt issue pass because of federal act stating no free passes. ii. Court took notice of lack of jurisdiction sua sponteiii. Cause of action here was breach of contractstate law. Federal question only comes in from defense. D would argue that federal act prohibits abiding by K. P would say act was unconstitutional- puts this in her complaint (not required because this right to argue unconstitutionality would not be waived if not in complaint, it is a counter-arguments to Ds defense).iv. Plaintiffs Attempt to Anticipate Defense that federal law would Preempt their claimCourt will Not allow this. Federal issues only arise through defenses and this is not enough to get into federal question J.e. Main Point: Alleging an anticipated constitutional defense in the complaint does not give a federal court jurisdiction if there is no diversity of citizenship between the litigants.Implied Remedy Doctrine1. Common Law: Rights & Causes of Action were Unified2. Statutory/Positive Law: Set of Duties or Commands- Sometimes law will Expressly Include a cause of action for enforcement- Sometimes law will Not Include an enforcement mechanism- In these cases, a cause of action may be Implied- An Implied Cause of Action (in absence of an express cause of action) is Necessary to Establish federal question jurisdiction under Merrell Dow3. Merrell Dow: - Court found no implied right of action- This lack of an independent cause of action left no basis for jurisdiction4. Cort v. Ash (SCOTUS 1975)- Shareholder Suit against Corporation for Violating Federal Law Regulating Campaign Contributions: Law provided No Express Private right of action.- Court developed a Four Part Test to Determine if a Private Remedy is Implicit in a statute not directly providing one:- Is plaintiff one of the Class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted? No because it is a general protection, not just to protect shareholders, but to clean up whole system and protect all citizens.- Is there any Indication of Legislative Intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or deny one? No, meant to benefit the public.- Is it Consistent with the Underlying Purpose of the legislative scheme to imply such a right for the plaintiff? No, goal was to avoid corruption. Having the corp pay it back later does not prevent them from providing the money in the first place.- Is the cause of action one Traditionally Relegated to State Law, so that it would be Inappropriate to infer cause of action based solely on federal law? Yes, has to do with regulations of elections and corporate law.- In this case, Court found No private cause of action implied- Schooner v. Peggy Doctrine (side note):- If Between Judgment & Decision of appellate court, a law Intervenes & Positively Changes the Rule which Governs, the Intervening Law should be Applied- The court must make decision in light of law as it stands when the court makes its decision5. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI (SCOTUS 1971)- Case you get into when the thing you are suing on is a Constitutional command.- Court Creates a Private Right of Action from the 4th Amendment of the Constitution using Bell v. Hood- where Ct stated: “ where legal rights have been invaded, and a federal statute provides for a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.- Black Dissents: Congress should create these causes of action; the Courts should not pull them out of nowhere. The Congressional statute only granted private rights of action against state officials who violate the Constitution, they did not include federal officials.6. Today, courts tend to look to the Plain Meaning of statute to see if a right of action is created; Hesitate to Imply a right of actionHOW TO TEST FOR ARISING UNDER SMJ?Look at potential theories under which you can slot the case:- The case arises under federal law- 1331- “But for” test- look for language in the statute “sue and be sued”- If arising under state law, does it require you to apply federal law?- Even if it does require interpretation of federal law en route to the claim, look at federal law and see: is there a right to file a claim under this law?1. Then use Cort v. Ash test to see if there is an implied cause of action?Supplemental Jurisdiction1. Supplemental Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over claims brought between Existing parties or between Existing parties & New parties, where there is No Independent Basis for federal jurisdiction2. Joinder of Claims:a. Counterclaims & Cross Claims: Rule 13i. Rule 13(a)Compulsory Counterclaims:1. Must arise out of Same Transaction & Occurrence2. Failure to Assert results in Waiver of counterclaimii. Rule 13(b)Permissive Counterclaims:1. Do Not have to arise out of same transaction & occurrence2. Failure to assert does Not result in waiver of counterclaimiii. Rule 13(f)Omitted Counterclaims:1. When a counterclaim is Omitted by oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, the court May Allow Amendmentiv. Rule 13(g)Cross Claims:1. Permissive (No Waiver if not asserted)2. Must arise out of same transaction & occurrenceb. Joinder of Claims: Rule 18i. Liberal Rule: Allows joinder of All claims one party has against an opposing party3. Joinder of Parties:a. Rule 14: Third Party Practice (Impleader)i. Rule 14(a):1. Defendant may Implead a third party who is Liable to him for All or Some of the plaintiffs claim against him2. Third party defendant May Assert Counterclaims or Cross Claims; Raise Defenses against plaintiffs original claim; Assert Claims Arising out of Same Transaction & Occurrence Against Plaintiff (See Rule 13)ii. Rule 14(b):1. When a Counterclaim is asserted Against Plaintiff, he may Implead a third party defendant under the rules aboveb. Rule 19: Compulsory Joinder of Partiesi. “Parties Needed for a Just Adjudication”ii. Rule 19(a): Requires “Necessary” parties to be joined If it will Not Deprive the court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the person is subject to service.iii. Rule 19(b): When joinder of a “necessary” party is Not Possible, provides for dismissal of the case, or if the party is not that necessary, the continuation of the lawsuit without the partyiv. Temple v. Synthes (SCOTUS 1990)1. Plaintiff injured by a plate in his spine; sues Manufacturer defendant in Federal court & sues Doctor in State court2. Defendant Moves to Dismiss for Failure to Join Necessary party (the doctor) under Rule 193. Court does not allow dismissal as doctor is not necessary party; Joint Tortfeasors are Always Permissive Partiesc. Rule 20: Permissive Joinder of Partiesi. Grants Permission for Federal lawsuits with Multiple Parties on Either Side of the v (multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants)ii. Two Requirements for Joinder of Parties:1. Claim must arise out of the Same Transaction & Occurrence2. Claim must have a Common Question of Law or Factd. Rule 21: Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Partiesi. Misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on any motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action.e. Rule 22: Interpleaderi. See Also U.S.C. 1335.ii. Nationwide service of process authorizedf. Rule 23: Class Actionsg. Rule 24: Interventioni. Rule 24(a): Intervention of R