Federal Jurisdiction

mulit-party joinder: class actions

* Representative ("Rep") sues on behalf of a group. 1) Initial requirements. - Too numerous for practicable joinder; -Some question of law or fact in common to the class; -Rep's claims/defenses typical of those of the class; and -Rep is adequate, meaning he will adequately and fairly represent class. 2) Next step. Must fit the case within one of three types of class actions: -"Prejudice": class treatment is necessary to avoid harm either to class members or to the party opposing the class. Example: numerous claimants to a fund; individual suits would deplete the fund. -Injunction or declaratory judgment (not damages) sought because the class members were treated alike by the other party. (Example: employment discrimination ) - **"Damages": (a) common questions predominate over individual questions and (b) class action is the superior method for resolving the dispute. (example: a mass tort) 3) The court must determine "at an early practicable time" whether to certify the case to proceed as a class action. -If the court certifies the class, it must define the class. -It must also appoint class counsel (up to the court) -Class counsel must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. 4) ** Does the court notify the class of pendency of the class action? In the "Damages" class ONLY, the court must give individual notice (usually by mail, paid for by the Representative) to all reasonably identifiable members, telling them various things, including: -they can opt out; -that they will be bound by the judgment if they do not opt out, and -they can enter a separate appearance through counsel. 5) Who is bound by the class action judgment? -All members except those who opted out of a "damages" type claim -No right to opt out of the other types (no notice, so how would you opt out?) 6) Can the parties dismiss or settle a certified class action? Only with court approval -In all three types of class action, the court gives notice to class members to get their feedback on whether the case should be settled or dismissed. - In a "damages" type class, may give members a second chance to opt out. 7) ***Subject matter jurisdiction. -Obviously, a class might invoke federal question jurisdiction by asserting a claim arising under federal law. There, we don't care about citizenship or amount in controversy. -But if the class seeks to invoke diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, whose citizenship is relevant on the class side? The representative must be diverse from ALL defendants (We do not care about the class member citizenship, just the Rep) - How do we determine amount in controversy in a diversity class action? The Rep's claim must exceed $75,000. You do not care about the other class members *In other words, as long as the rep is diverse from all defendants and the rep's claim exceeds $75,000, the class invokes diversity.

Motion for a Judgement as a Matter of Law (JMOL)

* This is an exceptional order, the effect of which is to take the case away from the jury. 1) When brought? After the other side has been heard at trial. So defendant can move at the close of plaintiff's evidence and again at the close of all evidence. Plaintiff can move at the close of all evidence. 2) Standard for granting this motion: reasonable people could NOT disagree on the result -* In ruling on the motion, the court generally will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. (always throw this in, because courts are nervous about granting this)

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL)

**Almost ALWAYS comes up with JMOL 1) Situation: the judge did not grant JMOL, and thus let the jury decide the facts. The jury returns a verdict for one party, and the court enters judgment on the basis of that verdict. Now, the losing party files renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; if granted, it results in entry of judgment for him. -Takes the judgment away from one side and grants it to the other 2) Must move not later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. 3) Standard: exactly the same as JMOL -SO IF THIS IS GRANTED, THE JURY REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE COULD NOT HAVE REACHED. -And, generally, the court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 4) **What is a prerequisite to making the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law? -You MUST have moved for JMOL at a proper time at trial; if you did not, then you waive RJMOL

Erie Doctrine Analysis

*A federal court in a diversity case must decide an issue. In deciding that issue, does she have to follow state law (or can she ignore state law)? Black letter: in diversity cases, the federal court must apply state substantive law. Analysis: 1) *First Ask: is there a federal law (like federal constitution or statute or FRCP or Federal Rule of Evidence) on point that directly conflicts with state law? If so, apply the federal law, as long as it is valid. -example: State law says a particular claim must be asserted individually, and not in a class action. In a diversity case, FRCP 23 would allow it to proceed as a class action. What does the federal court do? Applies FRCP 23 if it is valid. You don't have to worry about substance. (How do we know if a FRCP is valid? It is valid if it is arguably procedural.) 2) *Step two: If there is no federal law on point, ask: is this issue one of the easy ones? -These are the easy ones: (1) elements of a claim or defense, (2) statute of limitations, (3) rules for tolling statutes of limitations, and (4) conflict (or choice) of law rules. -Why are these easy? They are substantive, so you must apply state law on these four things. -Just say "SCOTUS has held that all four of these are substantive, so state law applies" 3) Step three: What if there is no federal law, and the issue is not an easy one, but federal judge wants to ignore the state law? -If the issue is substantive, she must follow state law. -Throw in 3 tests, and come to a reasonable conclusion: a) Outcome determinative: would applying or ignoring the state rule affect outcome of case? If so, it's probably a substantive rule, so should use state law. b) Balance of interests: does either federal or state system have strong interest in having its rule applied? c) Avoid forum shopping: if the federal court ignores state law on this issue, will it cause parties to flock to federal court? If so, should probably apply state law. -Just state the tests, toss a coin

joinder of claims: impleader

*Claims involving a third-party defendant (TPD), a new party brought in (usually by the defendant) in a vicarious liability situation. 1) The claim against this TPD must be for indemnity or contribution: Is or may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff's recovery. Not for pointing the finger at someone else to say that they are liable. (Pointing the finger is a defense—"I didn't do it, he did"). -Impleader is saying, "if I am liable, someone else has to pay, either all or part". - Example: to join a joint tortfeasor who owes the defendant contribution; or to join an insurance company to indemnify the defendant for money he may have to pay to plaintiff. 2) Process: D has a right to implead within 14 days after serving her answer; after that, she needs court permission. 3) Obtaining jurisdiction over TPD: -Step 1: File TPD complaint; -Step 2: Serve Process (Court needs Personal Jurisdiction over the TPD). 4) Claims by and against TPD: Plaintiff can assert claim against TPD and TPD can assert claim against Plaintiff, if the claims arise form the same transaction and occurrence as the underlying case, BUT, the court needs subject matter jurisdiction for EACH: -If Federal Question or Diversity is met between the parties against whom the claims are asserted, the claim may proceed. -Lack of Diversity: If the parties against whom the claims are asserted are not diverse, court will need to apply supplemental jurisdiction:

alienage rules

*Must have a citizen of a state on one side and an alien on the other. 1) Cannot be between two aliens. 2) Note: An alien admitted to U.S. for permanent residence is treated as a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled. 3) Note: A U.S. Citizen domiciled in a foreign country is not an alien, but is also not a citizen of a state → Cannot go to federal court on diversity (must go to state court).

multi-party joinder: interpleader

*One holding money or property wants to force all potential claimants into a single lawsuit to avoid multiple litigation and the threat of inconsistent results. 1) Terminology: The person holding the property is the stake holder. The people who want the property are the claimants. 2) There are two types of interpleader: "rule" and "statutory." In each, the stakeholder is not sure who owns the property (maybe he thinks it's his), and wants to avoid being sued several different times about it. - In each type, the court may issue an injunction stopping parties from litigating the ownership question in another court. -The two types, though, have different standards for jurisdiction, venue, and service of process. 3) To determine diversity of citizenship: -Under the Rule, the stake holder must be diverse from every claimant. HINT: Rule interpleader is just treated as a regular diversity case. -Under the statute, one claimant must be diverse from one other claimant. (Note: can have claimants from the same state, but one must be diverse). Don't even look at the stakeholder's citizenship. 4) Amount in controversy: -Under the Rule, must exceed $75,000. -Under the statute, all you need is $500 or more. 5) Venue: -Under the Rule, regular venue rules, like any case. -Under the statute, lay venue in a district where any claimant resides 6) Service of process: -Under the Rule, regular service of process rules, like any case. -Under the statute, nationwide service of process.

Supplemental Jurisdiction.

*Supplemental Jurisdiction only works after a case is already in federal court (through diversity or FQ). We have an additional claim in that case and that claim does not meet diversity or FQ. We might still be able to get that claim into federal court with supplemental jurisdiction. 1) The test: the claim we want to get into federal court must share a "common nucleus of operative fact" with the claim that invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction. -So when is the test always met? When the claim arises from the same transaction or occurance as the underlying case. 2) *The limitation. In a diversity case, the plaintiff cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome a lack of diversity (but can for amount). 3) Examples: a) P (NY) sues D-1 (CA) and D-2 (NY) on state-law claims in one case. The claims arise from the same transaction. The claims exceed $75,000. The claim by P against D-1 invokes diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. -The claim by P against D-2 does not invoke diversity or FQ. Can the claim by P against D-2 invoke supplemental jurisdiction? After all, the claim meets "the test." No. PLAINTIFF CAN NEVER OVERCOME A LACK OF DIVERSITY IN A DIVERSITY CASE. b) BUT, P CAN use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome a LACK OF AMOUNT in controversy for a claim in a diversity case. -example: P-1 (NY) and P-2 (NY) sue D (PA) on state-law claims. P-1's claim is for $100,000. P-2's claim arises from the same transaction, and is for $50,000. P-1's claim meets diversity. P-2's does not, because even though citizenship is OK, the claim does not exceed $75,000. - Can the claim by P-2 invoke supplemental jurisdiction? Yes. It meets the test and the limitation does not apply to problems with amounts. c) P can ALSO use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome lack of diversity for a claim in a federal question case. The limitation ONLY applies in diversity cases. -example: P (NY) sues D (NY) for (1) violation of federal antitrust laws, and joins a transactionally related claim for (2) violation of state antitrust laws. OK? Claim (1) is OK because it's a FQ. -But claim (2) is not FQ (because it's based on state law) and does not meet diversity. Can claim (2) invoke supplemental jurisdiction? *YES. It meets "the test" and the limitation does not apply because this is a federal question case. *** SOLID GOLD SUMMARY: So a non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal court if it meets "the test" UNLESS it is: -Asserted by a plaintiff -In a diversity of citizenship (not FQ) case AND -Is against a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff. 4) Note on Discretionary factors. Court has discretion NOT to hear the supplemental claim: -if the federal question is dismissed early in the proceedings; -if the state law claim is complex -state law issues would predominate.

rules for amount in controversy

*There must be a good faith allegation that the claim in the complaint alone exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 1) Claim: Whatever the plaintiff claims in good faith is OK unless it is "clear to a legal certainty" that plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000. (Ex. If plaintiff claims punitive damage which pushes his amount over $75k, and jurisdiction does not permit punitive damages on that claim, the claim will be dismissed). 2) Aggregation: P can aggregate claims (even unrelated) against one defendant. P cannot aggregate claims against multiple defendants to meet the $75K+ amount. -But, if P sues joint tortfeasors X, Y, and Z for $75,000.01. This is OK. With joint claims, use the total value of the claim. We don't worry about aggregating, just look at the claim. 3) Injunctions: How are they valued? -Majority view (plaintiff's viewpoint): is P hurt by more than $75K? -Minority view (defendants viewpoint): is D going to pay more than $75K? *Usually, if either of these two tests yields over $75,000, the amount requirement is deemed satisfied. Always discuss both. 4) Recovery: If plaintiff ultimately recovers less than $75,000, jurisdiction is OK, but he may be liable for costs even though she won the case.

joinder of defendant's claims: cross claim

*This is an offensive claim against an existing co-party (D vs. D). 1) It may be filed if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying action. (It is not compulsory). 2) Jurisdiction for cross-claims: for every claim asserted in federal court, need to have federal subject matter jurisdiction. Does the cross-claim invoke federal question jurisdiction or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction? If yes, proceed. If no, is there supp.? - OK if it meets the test: it arises from the same T/O as the underlying case and it is not a claim by a plaintiff, so the limitation does not apply.

Pleadings: Defensive Responses

*Under FRCP 12, a defending party may respond in one of two ways (by motion or by answer) no later than 21 days after service of process on her. 1) Answer is a pleading: In it, D does two things: -responds to allegations of the complaint (admitting, denying, or, when appropriate, saying that D lacks sufficient information to admit or deny) and -raises affirmative defenses. 2) Motions are not pleadings. They ask the court to order something, like require P to make a more definite statement or to strike a pleading or to dismiss the case. 3) Seven defenses can be raised either in the answer or by motion: - lack of subject matter jurisdiction; -lack of personal jurisdiction; -improper venue; - insufficient process (a problem with the documents); -insufficient service of process; - failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted; -failure to join an indispensable party. 4) timing of raising these defenses: *MUST BE PUT IN THE FIRST RULE 12 RESPONSE OR THEY ARE WAIVED: -lack of personal jurisdiction; -improper venue; -insufficient process (a problem with the documents); -insufficient service of process; * can be raised for the first time anytime through trial (not waivable) -Failure to state a claim -Indespensible party *subject matter jurisdiction is NEVER waived; you can raise it any time at all, even for the first time on appeal

service of process

1) Basic idea: Deliver to D(1) a summons (formal court notice of a suit and time for response) and (2) a copy of the complaint. Together, these are called "process." Must serve process within 120 days of filing the complaint or else case will be dismissed without prejudice (can refile). (If plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve within 120 days, the case will not be dismissed.) 2) The mechanics. Process may be served by any nonparty who is at least 18 years old. The federal district court may use any method of service permitted by (1) the FRCP (below) or (2) the law of the state in which it sits or (3) the law of the state in which service is effected. -FRCP methods: a. Personal service: Papers are given to D personally anywhere in the forum state. b. Substituted service: Valid if: (1) it is defendant's usual abode; (2) serve someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there. c. Agent Service: Process can be delivered to D's agent authorized to receive service. For example, when serving a corporation, can serve registered agent or a managing agent or an officer. Or litigant might appoint an agent to receive service of process. Or the agent might be appointed by operation of law, e.g., state officer under the nonresident motorist statute. 3) Waiver by mail: Process is mailed to D by first class mail, postage prepaid. Valid if D returns waiver form within 30 days. By doing so, D waives service but nothing else (e.g. personal jur.). -Note: If D does not return the wavier, service will either have to be personal or by substituted service, and D will have to pay the cost of such service. 4) Out-of-State: Process is delivered to D in another state. Valid only if state law allows (for example, with a long-arm statute). A federal court in New York basically can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only if New York state courts could do so.

notice pleading

1) Complaint must contain: (1) statement of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) short and plain statement of the claim, showing entitled to relief; and (3) demand for judgment. The demand for judgment does not limit what can be recovered except in default cases. -*Statement of claim need not be made with great specificity or particularity. The Federal Rules use what is often called "notice pleading," under which, at least in theory, the pleading is sufficient if it puts the other side on notice. 2) The Supreme Court says P must plead: -Facts supporting a plausible claim (fact pleading and not just a possible claim: tougher than it used to be) 3) *Three topics requiring the party to plead facts with specificity or particularity: -Fraud, mistake, and special damages ("defendant defrauded me" is not enough) -What are special damages? Those that do not normally flow from an event, and those you plead in detail

Federal Question Cases

1) Complaint must show a right or interest founded substantially on a federal law (e.g., federal constitution, legislation). Citizenship irrelevant; no amount in controversy requirement. P is enforcing a federal right. 2) Exclusive federal jurisdiction: they can only be brought in federal court. (Example: patent infringement and some federal securities law cases.) -Most federal questions do not have to be brought in federal court; they can be brought in state or federal court. 2) Well-pleaded complaint rule. If the complaint were well-pleaded, just stating P's claim, without extraneous material, would it be federal? Ask -- IS P ENFORCING A FEDERAL RIGHT? If the answer is yes, it's a FQ case. If the answer is no, it is not a FQ case. -Example: P sues D, and D claims federal statute as a defense. This is not a federal question case because the plaintiff is not enforcing a federal right.

removal

1) Defined: Allows defendants (only) to have a case that was filed by plaintiff in state court to be "removed" (transferred) to the federal court embracing the state court in which originally filed (i.e. the federal court in the district where the state court is located—this is a venue issue). 2) General test: removable if case could have been filed in federal court, i.e., if there is federal subject matter jurisdiction (diversity, alienage, or Federal Question). -Rule 1: ALL DEFENDANTS must agree to remove. If there is one holdout, no removal. -Rule 2: Plaintiffs can never remove (even if they are a defendant on a counterclaim). **Special Rules for diversity cases only: No removal if any defendant is a citizen of the forum in a diversity case. (Does not apply in Federal Question); No removal more than one year after the case was filed in state court 4) Procedure: - D files notice of removal in federal court, stating grounds of removal; signed under Rule 11; attach all documents served on D in state action; copy to all adverse parties. Then file copy of notice in state court. -If removal was procedurally improper, P moves to remand to state court; she must do so within 30 days of removal. But if there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction, P can move to remand anytime (or the federal court can remand anytime). In other words, there is no time limit on raising lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Similarly, in a case filed originally in federal court, the court must dismiss if there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction.) 6) Defendant's Waiver of Right to Remove: -Defendant files permissive counterclaim in state court: probably waives right to remove. -Defendant files compulsory counterclaim in state court: probably does not waive right to remove.

joinder of defendant's claims: counterclaim

1) Defined: This is an offensive claim against an existing opposing party. -The best example is a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff. -The counterclaim is filed with the responsive pleading (answer). There are two types of counterclaims: 1) Compulsory: One that arises from the same transaction and occurrence of the plaintiff's claim. - IT MUST BE FILED WITH YOUR ANSWER IN THE PENDING CASE (unless it has already been asserted) OR ELSE IT'S WAIVED (D cannot sue on claim in separate case). -Note: If D never files an answer, and has the case dismissed on a motion to dismiss, the compulsory claim did not have to be raised, so it is not waived. 2) Permissive: Does not arise from the same T/O as plaintiff's claim. -Does not have to be asserted in the pending case. D may assert in the pending case or separate case. **Jurisdiction for Counterclaims: 1) for every claim asserted in federal court, need to have federal subject matter jurisdiction. Does the counterclaim invoke federal question jurisdiction or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction? If yes, proceed. 2) If no, is there supp.? -Supplemental jurisdiction (ancillary) can be used to get a compulsory counterclaim into federal court. -OK if: It meets the test (T/O) and the limitation does not apply (because this is not a claim by a plaintiff) -Note: The Second Circuit has even upheld supplemental jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim if it has a "loose factual connection" with P's claim.

Establishing Citizenship for Diversity Purposes

1) For Persons: Domicile is the focus, and it is established by two concurrent factors—(a) Presence in the state at some point WITH (b) the intent (subjective) to make that state your permanent or fixed home. -No single factor is determinative: courts look to all relevant evidence of intent, e.g., instate tuition, voting. But, a person has only one domicile at a time (so a human can only be a citizen of one state at a time). 2) For Corporations: don't talk about domicile. For corporations, citizenship equals: (1) all states where incorporated (usually there's only one) AND (2) the one state where the company has its principal place of business (PPB). -That means a corporation (unlike a human) can be a citizen of more than one state at a time. -Note: no matter how big the corporation is, it only has one principal place of business. Test for PPB: i. headquarters (nerve center -- where decisions are made) OR ii. major production or service activity (muscle center). *Nerve center usually PPB unless all activity in one state. 3) For Unincorporated Associations (e.g., partnerships, labor unions) look to: the citizenship of all members. -A Partnership is a citizen of ALL the states where its partners (general and limited) are citizens. -Note: If partners are citizens of all states, partnership is citizen of all states, and there can be no complete diversity if a US citizen is suing. 4) For decedents, minors, and incompetents, look to: the citizenship of the person being represented, not the citizenship of the representative. 6) For Class Actions: look to the citizenship of the class representative.

jury trial

1) Juries resolve disputes of fact. The court instructs the jury on the law. 2) **Right to jury trial in federal court: -Seventh Amendment preserves it in actions at law, but not in suits at equity (doesn't apply in state courts) -But, what if a case involves both law and equity? The jury decides the facts underlying the law claim, but NOT the equity claim *So suppose a case involves a claim for damages (legal relief) and a claim for an injunction (equitable relief). What should the federal trial court do? -Have the jury decide the facts underlying the damages claim -And, generally, try the jury issues first. 3) Requirement of demand: You must demand jury trial in writing no later than 14 days after service of the last pleading raising a jury-triable issue. 4) *When selecting the jury (the voir dire process): -each side has unlimited strikes of potential jurors for cause (e.g., bias, related to a litigant). -Each side also has three "peremptory" strikes, which traditionally did not have to be explained. They must be used in a race and gender-neutral way -Jury selection is state action. No discriminatory behavior allowed. 5) Way to control the jury by the judge: JMOL (see slide)

motion for a new trial

1) Situation: jury reaches a verdict, and the court enters judgment on that verdict. A party can move for new trial within 28 days after entry of the judgment. -What is the judge looking for here? Any error that requires the case to be retried 2) Examples of grounds: -(1) prejudicial (not harmless) error at trial makes judgment unfair (e.g., wrong jury instruction, erroneous evidentiary ruling); (2) new evidence that could not have been discovered in time for trial; (3) prejudicial misconduct of party or juror (e.g., juror made independent investigation of accident scene); (4) judgment is against the weight of the evidence, showing serious error of judgment by the jury. 3) Granting new trial is less drastic than granting RJMOL. Why? -New trial results in starting over, so the same party might still win -RJMOL results in taking judgment away from one party and giving it to the other.

subject matter jurisdiction: types of cases

Federal courts can only hear certain kinds of cases: 1) diversity of citizenship -includes "alienage" jurisdiction. 2) federal question

SMJ exclusions in diversity

Federal courts will not issue a divorce, alimony or child custody decree; they also will not probate a decedent's estate.

hint about joinder

If a claim starts with "C" (counterclaim, crossclaim), it is between existing parties. If it starts with "I" (impleader, intervention), someone new is joining the case.

venue

Once properly in Federal Court, to which district do you bring the case? 1) Cases filed originally in federal court: -Rules: In any case (Federal Question or Diversity), plaintiff may lay venue in any district where the following is true: a) All defendants reside in the same district, or -Special Rule: if defendants reside in different districts of the same state, venue is proper in the district where any one of the defendants resides. b) Where a substantial part of the claim arose. -If no district anywhere in the U.S. meets either of these two choices (and that will rarely be true: basically only when there's no district where all defendants reside and the claim arose overseas), then: a) in diversity of citizenship cases, any district where any D is subject to personal jurisdiction. b) in federal question cases, any district where any D is found. 2) Determining Residency: -Individuals: Residence usually equals domicile. So it is usually the same as an individual's citizenship for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction purposes. -Corporations: "resides" in all districts where the corporation subject to personal jurisdiction when case commenced. (i.e. anywhere it transacts business). Note: Note: Don't confuse with corporation's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. Ford Motor Company is a citizen of Delaware (inc.) and of Michigan (ppb). But it is a resident of every district where subject to personal jurisdiction (likely everywhere). 3) Local Actions. Actions re: ownership, possession or injury to land (including trespass) must be filed in the district where the land lies. 4) Transfer of Venue. a) From one federal district court to another; can only transfer to one where case could've been filed (one that is a proper venue and where there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant, without waiver by the defendant). -If venue in original forum is proper, may transfer to another federal district court; factors (1) convenience of parties; (2) convenience of witnesses; (3) "interests in justice." The court to which a case is transferred applies the choice of law rules of the original court, even if plaintiff initiated the transfer. -If venue in original forum is improper, court may transfer in the interests of justice or dismiss. b) Cases filed in state court, removed to federal: goes only to the federal district embracing that state court.

diversity of citizenship requirements

There are two requirements: (always state both) 1) The case is either (a) between "citizens of different states" (diversity) or (b) between "a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country (alienage)" and 2) The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000

Note on Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA

This Act contains a grant of subject matter jurisdiction separate from regular diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. It allows federal courts to hear a class action of at least 100 members if any class member (not just the representative) is of diverse citizenship from any defendant and if the aggregated claims of the class exceed $5,000,000. The whole idea is to get big interstate class actions into federal court. There are complicated provisions for ensuring that local classes (where most class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the same state) cannot stay in federal court. They are dismissed by the federal court (or, if they were removed from state court, are remanded to state court).

note on additional claims

To this point, we know how plaintiff can invoke either diversity of citizenship (including alienage) or FQ jurisdiction, so the case is in federal court. But additional claims may be asserted in the case, maybe by plaintiff or by another party. For every single claim joined in federal court, we must have a basis of subject matter jurisdiction. If the claim is not supported by diversity of citizenship or alienage or FQ, then try supplemental jurisdiction

joinder of parties

When can Parties join each other? 1) When can Co-Plaintiffs be joined and when cab Co-Defendants be joined? -When their claims: arise from the same transaction or occurrence, AND raise at least one common question. **If parties are to be joined, must then assess Subject Matter Jurisdiction—can the case come to Fed. Court? 2) "Necessary" and indispensable defendants and plaintiffs: Some absentees (persons not originally in the suit) MUST joined because they have some relationship with the action. -Necessary parties: (1) Without absentee, cannot accord complete relief among those already joined (worried about multiple suits); (2) absentee's interest will be harmed if he isn't joined (practical harm); or (3) absentee claims an interest which subjects a party (usually defendant) to possibility of multiple obligations. If the absentee falls into any of these three categories, the court can order joinder. -Joint tortfeasors: not necessary parties. Cannot be brought in through necessary parties order. Must have another way to bring them in. 3) Joinder of Necessary Party Not Feasible (either there is no personal jurisdiction over him or his joinder destroys diversity of citizenship or he has a valid objection to venue): the court must either (1) proceed with the case without joining the necessary party or (2) dismiss the pending case. -Note: if the case is dismissed, it is because the necessary party is "indispensable". -How does the court decide whether to proceed or dismiss? Balances these factors: 1. Is there an alternative forum available where everybody (including the absent necessary party) can be joined (maybe state court)? 2. What is the real likelihood of harm to anybody if we proceed without the absent necessary party? 3. Can the court do something to shape the order in the pending case to avoid any such harm?

personal jurisdiction

federal courts require personal jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS -analysis is the same as in state court: in state presence, doing business, domicile; long arm jurisdiction, constitutional contacts issues. -PJ tells us in what states the litigation MAY be filed

complete diversity rule

no diversity if ANY plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant; a plaintiff and a defendant CANNOT be co-citizens (domiciled in the same state)