Answer to Question #1 - Class 8 question-1 1-09-07

Answer to Question 1

I. SMJ

Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine a particular controversy. A court exercises SMJ when there is a Federal Question or Diversity between parties.

II. Federal Question

A court exercised Federal Question jurisdiction when the cause of action arises from a Federal Statute, Treatise, Constitution, or construction matter. Here, Bill alleges that Debbie operated her vehicle in violation of the Federal Highway Safety Act. The act prohibits the operation of cars designed exclusively for racing in competitive events. Because Debbie was driving a prohibited racing car when she collided with Bill, Debbie's actions appear to fall under the Federal Law.

III. Diversity

A court exercises Diversity jurisdiction when no plaintiff and defendant are domiciled in the same state and the amount in controversy exceeds $75K. Domicile is presence in a state and intent to remain.

Bill is domiciled in California. If residence is equal to domicile, then the domicile requirement is met.

The amount in controversy must exceed $75K. It must appear to a legal certainty that this amount will not be met to justify dismissal. Bill was hit by Debbie while he was in a rental car. Because the type of car is unknown it is hard to determine the value of damages to the car. However, Bill seeks compensation only for a temporary injury which only bothered him the day of the accident. Id doesn't appear the injuries sustained will come close to the jurisdictional minimum unless the car he was driving was very expensive.

IV. Removal

A defendant may remove a case from state to federal court as long as there is concurrent subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal courts have jurisdiction over the FHSA claim because it arises under a Federal Law–the Federal Highway Safety Act. State courts are presumed to have jurisdiction over matter within their state, therefore, concurrent jurisdiction exists.

A non-resident defendant may only be removed from state to Federal court if the case is not based on diversity. Because diversity SMJ is being alleged fro the new claim, and because a Federal Question has been alleged, the defendant can properly remove the Federal Question case from state to Federal Court.

However, the cause of action for negligence will not be removable because this cause of action would be based on diversity SMJ, unless the court can gain supplemental SMJ over the negligence claim.

V. Supplemental Jurisdiction

The power of the court to preside over matters for which it otherwise would not have SMJ. A court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims when there is a common nucleus of operative fact. Suit for negligence based on the auto accident, a state claim, and Debbie's operation of her vehicle against the FHSA. Because both claims stem from the same accident, it would be judicially economic to try both claims together, as the same witnesses and testimony will be needed for both claims.

Therefore, although the court would not otherwise have SMJ over the state negligence claim, it can piggy back on the Federal Question.

Conclusion

The Federal court does have SMJ over both claims. It has original SMJ over the Federal Question claim and supplemental SMJ over the negligence (state) claim.