#16408 - Civil Procedure Full Course Outline - Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure: This outline accords with Friedenthal et al, Civil Procedure: Cases and Materials (11th ed.)

Subject matter jurisdiction 1

Horizontal choice of law 21

Personal jurisdiction 27

Venue & Erie 41

Relief pending litigation 55

Procedural due process 59

Discovery 67

Voluntary dismissal & right to a jury trial 71

Post-trial practice 71

Appellate litigation 74

Expanding the lawsuit 77

Claim & issue preclusion 79

Class actions 84

Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)

SCOTUS

1. Rule of Law

   1. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over any matter that involves a federal question.

2. Facts

   1. Plaintiff: Bank of the United States

   2. Defendant: Osborn, Ohio’s state auditor

   3. P brought suit in federal court to enjoin D from collecting tax that P alleged to be unconstitutional. Court granted temporary injunction. D forcibly entered bank and took money. Court ordered officials to return the money. D appealed on the grounds that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

3. Procedural History

   1. See above.

4. Legal Question

   1. Did the federal circuit court have jurisdiction?

5. Holding and Reasoning: Marshall, CJ

   1. Yes, because the congressional act chartering the bank authorized it.

   2. Reasons for:

      1. Congressional act chartering the bank authorized it “to sue and be sued in any Circuit Court of the United States.” This was a grant by Congress of jurisdiction to federal courts in all cases to which the bank was a party.

      2. Considers whether Congress had constitutional power to confer jurisdiction of these cases pursuant to “arising under” language of Article III § 2.

         1. Clearly true in actual case, since constitutionality of Ohio’s tax on the bank was at issue.

         2. But also because every case and issue involving the bank “grows out of, and is tested by” federal law.

         3. The existence of non-federal questions does not deprive a federal court of the right to hear it, so long as a federal issue is also an ingredient of the matter.

      3. Judgment for P affirmed.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley (1908)

SCOTUS

1. Rule of Law

   1. Well pleaded complaint: For a suit to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, giving a federal court jurisdiction to hear the case, a plaintiff must allege a cause of action based upon those laws or that Constitution.

      1. Under Mottley, the plaintiff has the burden of alleging the federal issue as an element of her claim; if the federal issue is assigned to defendant as an affirmative defense, federal jurisdiction cannot be asserted.

2. Facts

   1. Plaintiff: The Mottleys

   2. Defendant: Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.

   3. In 1871, P were injured in railway accident. D settled P’s claim with a lifetime pass for free transportation, expressed in contract. In 1906, Congress passed an act forbidding granting of free passes or free transportation. In 1907, D refused to renew P’s passes.

3. Procedural History

   1. P brought suit in federal district court, seeking specific performance of their settlement agreement with the railroad. P alleged that the act did not apply to their free pass and that, if the law is construed as prohibiting such passes, it deprives them of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

   2. D demurred to P’s complaint. Trial court overruled D and entered judgment in favor of P.

   3. D appealed to SCOTUS.

4. Legal Question

   1. Did the circuit court have jurisdiction?

5. Holding and Reasoning: Moody, J

   1. No, because the original cause of action does not “arise under the Constitution or the laws of the US”

   2. Reasons for

      1. Questions of whether the act prohibits P’s passes, and of whether the act is constitutional, do not need to be addressed.

      2. No diversity of citizenship

      3. Jurisdiction only in the case that the suit was “arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” This means that P’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.

      4. Not enough for P to allege an anticipated defense to action and that the defense is invalidated by the Constitution. Although such questions may arise in the course of the litigation, the original cause of action does not arise under the Constitution.

   3. Reasons against

      1. Neither party has questioned the circuit court’s jurisdiction.

         1. But it is the duty of the court to see that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not limited.

   4. Judgment reversed and remitted to circuit court with instructions that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Structure of Federal Complaint:

Allege Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Allege Venue

Allege Parties Jurisdiction over person or property

Allege Facts What law applies

• Horizontal Choice of Law (multiple states)

• Vertical Choice of Law

• Constitution Article III § 3

• 28 U.S.C. § 1331

• When Congress enacts a federal statute, the presumption is that both the federal and state courts have competence to enforce the law.

  • This presumption of concurrent jurisdiction is rooted in a “system of dual sovereignty.” (CB 265 note 7)

• Areas in which Congress has given federal courts exclusive jurisdiction (among other things):

  • certain securities-law class action; bankruptcy; patents and copyrights; actions against foreign consul and vice-consuls; actions to recover a fine, penalty, or forfeiture under federal law; and actions involving certain seizures. (CB 302 note 2)

• Not all causes of action created by federal law confer federal question jurisdiction:

  • Shoshone Mining v. Rutter (1900) involved federal statute that provided the right to possession was to be determined by “local customs and rules.” The cause of action was created by federal law, but did “not involve any question as to the construction or effect of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” (CB 304 note 2). Appears to be exception to well-pleaded complaint rule. [Prof hates this law.]

• Not all causes of action created by state law are outside 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

  • Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co (1921) shareholder sued to enjoin the Trust Company, a Missouri corporation, from investing in certain federal bonds on the ground that the Act of Congress authorizing their issuance was unconstitutional. “The general rule is that where it appears from the bill or statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States, […] the District Court has jurisdiction.” (CB 304 note 3)

• A state statute that requires compliance with federal statute does not necessarily create jurisdiction:

  • Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co (1934) plaintiff brought action under Kentucky’s Employer Liability Act, which barred an affirmative defense for contributory negligence or assumption of risk if defendant failed to meet state or federal safety requirements. P alleged D’s failure to comply with Federal Safety Appliance Act.

  • SCOTUS found federal question jurisdiction did not exist, since “a suit brought under a state statute which define liability to employees who are injured while engaged in intrastate commerce, and brings within the purview of the statute a breach of the duty imposed by federal statute, should not be regarded as a suit arising under the laws of the United States.” (CB 305 note 4)

• 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)

• Handout: First Federal Savings Bank

  • Declaratory Judgment Exception: 28 USC 2201(a) allows declaratory judgment in fed court if imaginary lawsuit meets SMJ requirements (First Savings Bank)

Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (2005)

SCOTUS

1. Rule of Law

   1. A federal court may have jurisdiction over a state cause of action, if the action has a substantial federal component in actual controversy, and federal jurisdiction would not disrupt the balance of labor between state and federal courts.

2. Facts

   1. Plaintiff: Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc.

   2. Defendant: Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

   3. In 1994, IRS seized Michigan property belonging to P to satisfy federal back taxes owed to IRS by P. After giving to P statutorily guaranteed notice of upcoming sale via certified mail, IRS sold the property to D.

   4. Five years after the sale, P filed a motion to quiet title in state court, alleging that he did not receive proper notice of the sale because he was not personally served in the manner required by statute.

3. Procedural History

   1. D removed the case to Federal District Court as presenting a federal question, because the claim of title depended on interpretation of the notice statute in federal tax law.

   2. District Court declined to remand the case at P’s behest after finding that the “Claim does pose a ‘significant question of federal law.” District Court ruled that P’s lack of federal right of action to enforce its claim against D did not bar the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

   3. On merits, District Court granted summary judgment to D, holding that substantial compliance with statute vis-à-vis delivery was enough.

   4. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit affirmed, since the title claim raised issue of federal law and implicated substantial federal interest (in construing federal tax law); CoA also affirmed DC on merits of case.

   5. SCOTUS granted certiorari on jurisdictional question.

4. Legal Question

   1. “Whether want of a federal cause of action to try claims of title to land obtained at a federal tax sale precludes removal to federal court of a state action with nondiverse parties raising a disputed issue of federal law.”

5. Reasoning and Holding: Souter, J...