Supplemental Jurisdiction
here is the link for the below information
http://currentstudents.law.miami.edu/outlines/civ_pro.html
supplemental jurisdiction
Under section 1367 and includes under a single name the concepts of ancillary and pendant jurisdiction. It allows a federal court to entertain certain claims over which it would have no independent basis of SMJ. The court has discretion to hear such claims if they are transactionally related to a case properly involving jurisdiction and meet other statutory requirements.
1. federal district courts may exercise jurisdiction over supplemental claims forming part of the same CON case as the claims providing the bases for the court’s original jurisdiction, including new parties properly joined with such claims
2. the federal district courts may not exercise supplementary jurisdiction over claims/parties if doing so would encourage P to evade complete diversity jurisdiction
3. the federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where either the claim concerns novel or complex issues of state law, the claim substantially predominates over the claim responsible for the original jurisdiction, the court dismisses all claims on which original jurisdiction was based, or there are compleling reasons in exceptional circumstances militating against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
1. Pendant claim – in some cases, P will have both federal and state claims against the D. Although there may be no diversity, the federal court has discretion to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the claim based on state law if the two claims < B>derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a P would ordinarily be expected to try then all in one judicial proceeding.
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
Removal §1441
Allows D to remove an action brought in a state court to a federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action.
1. The notice of removal of an action shall be filed within 30 days after receipt by the D of a copy of initial pleading setting forth claims for relief or within 30 days after the service of summons upon D if served in court and not required to be serve d on D
-Limitation on removal in Diversity cases: where jurisdiction of the federal
court is based on diversity and one of the D is a citizen of the state in which
the state action was brought, the action is not removable
-if claim is based on federal question, it is irrelevant that the parties are not diverse and that there is an in-state D in the action
-procedure for removal §1446: D must file a notice of removal within 30
days of receiving P pleading in the state suite – containing a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal and signed under rule 11 – in federal
district court in the district and division w/in which the action is pending. A
copy of the notice should be sent to the other parties and to the state court.
-(e): the federal court is not precluded from hearing the case simply because the state court lacked jurisdiction over it
1. Where it may be removed to:
1. can’t remove to another state court or to a state court in a different state
2. can’t remove to a federal court in another state or even in another district in the same state
Can only remove to the federal district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
1. P can file a motion to have the case remanded to the state court. If P bases this motion on a defect in removal procedures, it must be brought w/in 30 days of removal. The court must remand whenever it is shown that there was no federa l SMJ.
1. Williams v. Huron Valley School District
2. Powell v. Zoning Board of Appeals
VENUE §1391
Venue rules are meant to further restrict the places (districts) where the P may choose to bring suit, to assure that suits are tried in a place that bears some sensible relationship to the claims asserted or to the parties to the actions.
1. Diversity Cases
1. judicial district where any D resides, if all D reside in same state
2. judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated
3. judicial district in which any D is subject to PJ at time action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought
1. Other cases not founded on diversity
1. same as A
2. same as A
3. a judicial district in which any D may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise by brought
C. Venue is a personal privilege of the D and may be waived
THE ERIE PROBLEM
A federal court, in the exercise of its diversity jurisdiction, is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting, including the states conflict of laws rules. However, the federal courts apply federal pr ocedural law in diversity cases.
1. state courts as lawmakers in a federal system
1. This issue in Historical Context
2. Constitutionalizing the issue
1. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
1. the limits of state power in federal courts
1. Interpreting the Constitutional Command of Erie
1. Guaranty Trust Co. v. New York
A state law rule that substantially determines the "outcome" of the litigation must be applied.
2. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural
If a definitive countervailing federal policy exists, such as the right to a jury trial, federal law applies.
1. De-Constitutionalizing Erie
1. Hannah v. Plumer
Generally, federal statutes or rules dealing with procedural matters will be applied over contrary state law – if a federal rule is "arguably procedural" it will be applied.
1. Determining the Scope of Federal Law: Avoiding Erie
The federal procedure rule will not be applied in diversity cases when its effect
would be to toll a state statute of limitations.
1. Outcome determinative test – when it is unclear whether a state law rule is
substantive or procedural.
1. Determining the Scope of State Law: An entailment of Erie
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.