civil procedure 2003 class 30: subject matter jurisdiction: aggregation and supplemental...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
![Page 3: Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov. 2 2003](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062409/5697c0191a28abf838cceb5a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Burnett v. Birmingham Board of Education (N.D. Ala. 1994)