22
Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Civil Procedure 2003

Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental

Jurisdiction

Nov. 2 2003

Page 2: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Page 3: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Rationale in Gibbs

• According to Justice Brennan, what is the Constitutional source for exercising jurisdiction over pendant state claims

• When does a federal court have power to exercise pendant jurisdiction?

• Must that power be exercised in every case where it exists?

• What is the policy justification for pendant claim jurisdiction?

Page 4: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

2 step test in Gibbs

• 1. Does the court have jurisdictional POWER to entertain the pendant claim? Hint: look at relationship between claims

• 2. If the court has that power, does the exercise of sound DISCRETION indicate that the federal court ought to assert that discretion? What factors must the court take into account?

Page 5: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Federal Claim is dismissed before trial

• According to Gibbs, how should dismissal before trial of the federal claim affect the issue of whether or not to refuse jurisdiction over the state law claim?

Page 6: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

TRADITIONAL RULES FOR AGGREGATION

• Single P w/2 or more claims vs. single D

• 2 Ps with claims against a single D - “separate and distinct”/”common & undivided interest” test

• Single P w/ claims vs. multiple Ds

• Counterclaims

Page 7: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

HYPO• Barbie (CA) and Ken (CA)

are equal partners in a dressmaking business called “High Heels”. Skipper (N.Y.) orders 4 ball gowns from them. Barbie and Ken make the gowns and deliver them to Skipper along with an invoice for $90,000. After 18 months, Skipper has not paid Barbie and Ken a cent.

Page 8: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

HYPO CONTINUED

• Barbie and Ken’s lawyer, Dawn, files an action in federal court, naming High Heels as plaintiff and claiming the amount of the $90,000 debt in damages. Barbie and Ken, as equal partners, each have an interest of $45,000 in the claim. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

Page 9: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Does Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute Trump Traditional

Aggregation Rules?

• Zahn – 414 U.S. 291 (1975) (predates statute) no ancillary jurisdiction over claims without independent jurisdictional basis in class action, where 1 class member had claim meeting jurisdictional amount, but other class members did not)

• Split in circuits on whether s. 1367 overrules Zahn.

Page 10: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Does 1367(b) apply?• Multiple Ps sue the same D for different claims• P sues multiple Ds for different claims; one claim

meets the requirements of diversity but the others do not

• D counterclaims and P wants to implead a nondiverse third party for indemnification/contribution

• P wants to cross-claim against a nondiverse P

Page 11: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

28 U.S.C. sect. 1367(d)

• This is a tolling provision

• What is its effect?

• What is the reason for this tolling provision?

• Is it constitutional?

Page 12: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

28 U.S.C. sect. 1367(d)

• This is a tolling provision• What is its effect? • What is the reason for this tolling

provision?• Is it constitutional? Yes – see Jinks v.

Richland County, 349 S.Ct 298 (2003) (necessary and proper and does not violate state sovereignty)

Page 13: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

PRACTICE EXERCISE 31

• CB p. 839• Plaintiff: Nancy Carpenter (NH)• Ds: Dee (MA), Ultimate (MA)• 3d Party Ds: McGills Garage (MA), Dale

McGill (NH)• Motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction• Motion to sever impleader

Page 14: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

REMOVAL JURISDICTION

• What is removal?

• What is the policy justification for removal

• a. For diversity cases?

• b. For federal question cases?

Page 15: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

LEGAL SOURCES FOR REMOVAL JURIDCITION

• NOT IN U.S. CONSTITUTION

• So, removal is purely statutory.

• There have been federal removal statutes since 1789.

Page 16: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

LIMITS ON REMOVAL

• Can a plaintiff remove?

• Can a plaintiff remove if there is a counterclaim?

• Can a case be removed from federal to state court?

• Any types of actions non-removable?

Page 17: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

WHEN IS A CASE REMOVABLE?

• There must be original subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court

• Basic rules of federal question and diversity/alienage apply

• Well-pleaded complaint rule applies

• Artful pleading rule

Page 18: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

WHAT IF FEDERAL COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION?

• P brings action in state court

• Can D remove?

• See 28 U.S.C. section 1441(e)

Page 19: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL

• How does a defendant remove ? (see 28 U.S.C. section 1446)

• Can a defendant waive her right to remove?

• How many defendants must agree to remove a case?

Page 20: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

WHERE IS CASE REMOVED TO?

• What court(s) may hear a claim that is removed?

• What is the applicable statutory provision determining this?

Page 21: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

CHALLENGING REMOVAL

• How does a plaintiff challenge removal?

• Can a plaintiff waive her right to challenge removal?

• Are there any applicable time limits? If so what?

Page 22: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003

Burnett v. Birmingham Board of Education (N.D. Ala. 1994)