JURISDICTION

Impleader

A petition or complaint brought in a lawsuit by a plaintiff or defendant against a third party who may be liable to that plaintiff or defendant.

Minimum Contacts

Another way for a court to obtain personal jurisdiction over a "foreign"(out of state) defendant is if the defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the state. The Supreme Court has stated merely that obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on its contacts with the state must not "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Contacts do not, however, have to be physical. "Jurisdiction is proper . . . where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a 'substantial connection' with the forum State. . . . Thus where the defendant 'deliberately' has engaged in significant activities within a State . . . or has created 'continuing obligations' between himself and residents of the forum . . . he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are shielded by 'the benefits and protections' of the forum's laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well." Factors the court may consider: Whether the contacts are substantial: The more contacts a defendant has with a forum state, the more likely that due process concerns are satisfied. How much business a corporation does in a state and how much money is generated is an example of how to determine whether contacts are substantial. Whether the contacts are purposeful: If a defendant has purposely established contacts with the forum state, the court likely has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The United States Supreme Court has said that "the constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established 'minimum contacts' in the forum State." "Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.' Even if the defendant has not intentionally or deliberately established contacts with the state, if the nature of the defendant's business is such that it's reasonably foreseeable that contacts with the forum state will be made, personal jurisdiction over the defendant by the forum state may be established. T]he foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there. FACTORS: 1. Whether the contacts are substantial 2. Whether the contacts are purposeful 3. Whether the contacts are "systematic and continuous" 4. Whether the contacts and the underlying cause of action are related 5. Whether witnesses and evidence are readily or at least somewhat conveniently available 6. Whether the forum is interested in the action Residence: Some states allow residence to be a basis for personal jurisdiction. Non-resident motorist: Most states have passed legislation that allow courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident motorists who have been involved in motor vehicle collisions within the state. Tortuous acts within the state: Most states have passed legislation that allow courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has committed a tortuous act within the state. The requirements of due process and the long-arm statutes must be satisfied before personal jurisdiction may be exercised. The long-arm statutes may not violate due process as established by the Constitution.

Diversity jurisdiction

Federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over cases in which the parties have diverse citizenships (i.e., no plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state) and in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The two requirements for federal courts to exercise diversity jurisdiction are: (1) the plaintiff and defendant must be citizens of different states; and (2) the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. A business that is not incorporated does not have, of course, a place of incorporation. A partnership is an example of an unincorporated association. To determine the citizenship of an unincorporated association for diversity jurisdiction purposes, one must determine the citizenship of every member of the association. The association adopts the citizenship of every member. The rule here is that diversity of citizenship must exist at the time that the suit is filed, not before and not after. In a case where there is more than one plaintiff or more than one defendant, diversity of citizenship does not mean that one plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than one defendant. All of the plaintiffs' citizenships must be different from all of the defendants' citizenships. Although, the plaintiffs do not have to have different citizenship from each other, and the defendants do not have to have different citizenship from each other. "[T]he legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent." As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), in addition to diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. As with the rule regarding when diversity of citizenship must exist, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 at the time the suit is filed. Just as a change in a party's citizenship after the suit is filed will not defeat jurisdiction, a decrease in the amount in controversy will not defeat jurisdiction if the decrease occurs after the suit is filed.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving a question or issue of federal law. Unlike diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, which we will discuss next, for federal question jurisdiction, there is no minimum for the amount in controversy, nor must the parties be citizens of different states.

In Rem Jurisdiction

In rem jurisdiction gives a court the authority to determine title to an object or real property. It is most often implicated when the possible claimants are unknown. In rem jurisdiction is implicated when an object or piece of land is the subject of the legal action. For a court to exercise in rem jurisdiction, FIVE conditions must be satisfied: 1. Value of property: The property must be valuable. 2. Location of property: The property must be located within the territory in which the court has jurisdiction. In other words, at the time the action is commenced, the property must be within the jurisdiction in which the court sits. 3. Control of property: The court must have control of the property before it is able to exercise in rem jurisdiction. While the court does not have to have actual possession of the property, it must control the property to the exclusion of the parties. 4. Procedural due process: To satisfy constitutional muster, the parties who may have an interest in the property must receive adequate notice of the pending action and must have the opportunity to be heard. Because in rem jurisdiction involves title or interest in property, and potential defendants may not be immediately known, publication in a newspaper usually satisfies this requirement. 5. Substantive due process: Because in rem actions usually involve property in which the state has an interest, substantive due process is often satisfied easily. The assertion of in rem jurisdiction does not require contracts between the parties interested in the property and the forum state.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction gives a court the authority to determine the rights and liabilities of a person or entity, such as a corporation or partnership, involved in a lawsuit. There are three types of personal jurisdiction: jurisdiction over the person; in rem jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person (also sometimes simply referred to as personal jurisdiction) is jurisdiction over the persons or entities, such as corporations or partnerships, involved in the lawsuit. There are several ways in which a state can acquire personal jurisdiction over a party so that its courts will be able to determine that party's rights and responsibilities. Consent, service of process while in the jurisdiction, and sufficient contact with the state are examples of such ways to satisfy the need for fairness in an assertion of jurisdiction. When the defendant is either forced into the jurisdiction or coerced into the jurisdiction through fraudulent means, any service of process will not give the court personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of the pending action and an opportunity to be heard in a proceeding that affects his or her interests. "Procedural due process" requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of the pending action and an opportunity to be heard. This is usually accomplished through service of process. How process may be served, however, is dependent upon the forum's rules, which often vary from forum to forum.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction:

Similar to in rem jurisdiction; it also gives a court the authority to determine title to property, but it is implicated when the claimants are known. Quasi in rem jurisdiction is invoked for the purpose of forcing a person or entity to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court by asserting jurisdiction over the property of that person. In this way, a court can use in rem jurisdiction to "get around" the fact that it may not have personal jurisdiction over one of the litigants. While the court cannot compel attendance by the litigant, it can indirectly do so by forcing the litigant to choose between losing his or her property and appearing in the court. Quasi in rem jurisdiction is similar to in rem jurisdiction in that it involves the court's control of the property, but with quasi in rem jurisdiction, the identities of the defendants are usually known or identifiable.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's authority to hear a specific kind of claim. Unlike personal jurisdiction, which the court can obtain upon a party's consent or failure to object, lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waivable; either the court has it, or it cannot assert it. So, over what subject matter do the federal district courts have jurisdiction? One type of case is where a federal question is raised. Congress has extended the federal trial courts' jurisdiction to other matters, including cases involving: admiralty, 28 U.S.C. § 1333; federal bankruptcy cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1334; federal commerce and antitrust, 28 U.S.C. § 1337; federal patents, copyrights and trademarks, 28 U.S.C. § 1338; and where the United States is a plaintiff, It is essential to read the text of each statute and any cases that analyze the statute to determine whether the federal trial courts have jurisdiction over the type of claim. In some cases (such as bankruptcy and maritime cases) the federal courts will have exclusive jurisdiction, which means that only the federal trial courts may hear such claims, not the state courts. It is important to note that subject matter jurisdiction is achieved based on the allegations contained in the complaint. Even if the defendant raises a question of federal law, for example, in its answer, if such a question is not raised in the complaint, the court does not gain subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the defendant's answer.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process is the Constitutional doctrine that provides, among other things, that a court may not assert jurisdiction over a party who has insufficient contacts with the state in which the court sits. The "substantive due process" inquiry involves an examination of the contacts between the state in which the court has jurisdiction and the defendant or property.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Supplemental jurisdiction is the means through which one can bring into federal court claims over which a federal court would normally not have subject matter jurisdiction. Essentially, a claim over which the court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction is attached to a claim over which the court has original subject matter jurisdiction. What must exist, however, as the base upon which to build supplemental jurisdiction: a valid, independent claim over which the court has federal subject matter jurisdiction. There must be some sort of relationship between the count(s) over which the court has original subject matter jurisdiction and the count(s) over which the court will need supplemental jurisdiction. It should be noted that courts are not settled regarding whether a plaintiff who does not have different citizenship from a defendant (i.e., they are a non-diverse plaintiff) may have his claim attached to a claim over which the federal court has jurisdiction. Some courts have, however, held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 allows the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim. Where the original claim is based in diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction applies only to the following claims: 1. Compulsory counterclaims (counterclaims that must be filed in that particular action) made pursuant to FRCP 13(a) 2. Crossclaims made pursuant to FRCP 13(g) 3. Joinder of additional parties to compulsory counterclaims pursuant to FRCP 13(h) 4. Impleader, pursuant to FRCP 14, of third-party defendants, but only in certain circumstances. Supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to claims by the original plaintiff against a third-party defendant. It does, however, extend to claims by third-party defendants, and claims by and against third-party plaintiffs. As provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), supplemental jurisdiction does not extend (where the original claim is based on diversity jurisdiction) to "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24" when original diversity jurisdiction does not exist. It is important to note that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), if a claim is dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, the statute of limitations is tolled for 30 days, leaving the claimant the option to re-file in state court. The claimant also has the option to voluntarily dismiss other claims and re-file them in state court.

Aggregation

The amount in controversy must be above $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction to apply. Aggregation allows jurisdiction where a plaintiff has brought multiple causes of action, which individually seek damages below $75,000, but can be combined so that the total amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 required.