Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Grable and sons (Embedded Federal Question)

"[T]he question is, does a state-law claim • necessarily raise a stated federal issue, • actually disputed and • substantial, • which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities."

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

1. The authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter (Ex. Bankruptcy court). 2. SMJ is never waivable: parties cannot simply consent to SMJ and the court will dismiss if it does not have proper Jx no matter what time in the litigation 3. SMJ is determined at the time the case was filed and will not change later in litigation. Some cases (copyright, trademark, patent) must be filed in federal court.

TB Harms case

Court ruled that even in the absence of express statute, federal law may govern what might seem an issue of local law b/c the federal interest is dominant • If a complaint comes close enough to presenting a federal claim that the court has trouble in deciding that it doesn't, dismissal of that claim should be for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" rather than for lack of jurisdiction. • If the complaint is close enough to the line to give "jurisdiction" the court may have power to adjudicate (supplemental jurisdiction)

Purpose/Rationale of Diversity Jurisdiction

Created because of fear that state courts would be biased or prejudiced against out of state litigants (appearance or actual)

DJ not applicable in two circumstance: (Ankenbrandt)

Domestic relations cases (marriage, divorce, child custody, alimony) even if spouses were citizens of different states when suit as brought. • Exception: When some "domestic" cases could invoke diversity: • Former spouse could sue the other in tort for child abuse. (For diversity purposes, the representative of a child, an incompetent, or a deceased person, has the same citizenship as the individual represented) Probate

Limited Jurisdiction, Concurrent Jurisdiction, and Exclusive Jurisdiction

Limited Jx courts: federal, small claims, municipal, probate, traffic, family Concurrent Jx: party can choose to file in state or federal court (US Constitution & treaties, non-exclusive US statutes, state claims that satisfy diversity or supplemental Jx) Exclusive Jx: party can only file in federal court (bankruptcy, copyright, etc)

SMJ in fed court system

Limited: • Fed question - §1331 • USA as party - §1345-46 • Admiralty - §1333 • Diversity and alienage - §1332 • Ambassadors - §1351 • Specified others General: NONE

Limited Jurisdiction vs. General Jurisdiction

Limited: "Courts of limited [subject matter] jurisdiction" may only hear cases on particular topics General: "Courts of general [subject matter] jurisdiction" may hear any cases not assigned to a specialized court

Hays Hybrid

Mentioning a federal issue in a contract, or a complaint, does not necessarily create Fed Question Jx. More like Grable than Mottley.

Constitutional Limits on DJ—Article III Section 2

Minimal or bare diversity • DEFINITION: At least one plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than at least one defendant • Congress may authorize SMJ for minimal diversity cases, but it rarely does so. (Interpleader, multi-district suits, class actions) • No amount in controversy requirement

Smith—securities case

State law requiring investment in legal securities, however, "illegal" securities were federal agency bonds issued under Federal law P claims unconstitutional. Court took broad view to assert arising under jurisdiction

Federal Question Jurisdiction §1331

The [US] district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §1331 BASIC RULE: A case "arises under" the laws of the United States if the plaintiff alleges that defendant violated a federal law. P must show that claim itself arises under federal law (Ex. antitrust, civil rights, intellectual property, labor & securities laws). You may not anticipate federal law in a counterclaim or defense.

Erie Doctrine

When ruling on a state law claim, a federal court applies state substantive law and federal procedural law. (Ex. having board game night at someone else's house) [1652] • Which laws are substantive and which laws are procedural? Use common sense and look at federal rules of civil procedure.

Embedded federal question requirements- Substantial

unsubstantial if it is obviously without merit or if previous decisions of this court foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be subjects of controversy.

Diversity Jurisdiction

§1332: US District Court has the power to hear a case when the parties are from different states. [28 U.S.C. S 1332(a)] Does not allow family law or probate law via statute.

The Essential Federal Element Requirement

• If the federal question is contained within a state-created cause of action, does that claim incorporate an essential federal element (under Grable & Sons, ask if the issue is necessary to decide, contested, substantial, and can be resolved by federal court without adverse effects on federalism) ? If yes, then there is federal question jurisdiction • Grable & Sons: IRS seized property owned by Grable after giving them notice by certified mail only. They then sold the property to another man. Grable argued that federal statutes required the IRS to notify him by personal service rather than certified mail. Because this federal statute is the central question to be determined rather than the state-cause of action about the validity of the sale, then the federal court has a strong interest in hearing the case and therefore there can be federal question jurisdiction.

Challenging SMJ—How a D can get court to dismiss case

• Rule 12(b)(1)—lack of jurisdiction over subject matter (no claim arising under federal law) • Rule 12(b)(6)—Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (If there is an arguable basis for a federal claim, don't look at it as a matter of jurisdiction). • Collaterally attack? • Normally NO • Defendant appears, challenges SMJ and loses challenge: NO collateral • Defendant appears, fails to challenge SMJ and loses on merits: NO collateral • When defendant defaults, UNCLEAR, could go both ways. (Different under Pennoyer, when defendant defaults, there is a clear collateral attack)