Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction refers to a court's ability to exercise jurisdiction over a particular type of controversy. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and thus typically only have jurisdiction over cases of diversity or federal questions.
Federal Question
Federal question diversity exists for cases governed by Constitutional or Federal Law.
Diversity
Diversity jurisdiction exists when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and all plaintiffs are diverse, i.e. citizens of different states, from all defendants.
Amount in Controversy
In order for federal courts to exercise diversity jurisdiction, the party bringing the action must plead in good faith more than $75,000 in damages, exclusive of interest and costs. Good faith means that there must be a legally tenable possibility that recovery will exceed the jurisdictional amount.
- Aggregation
In order to meet the jurisdictional amount, a plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against one plaintiff, or aggregate a joint claim against multiple plaintiffs (such as joint tortfeasors).
-Value of Equitable Claims
In cases where a plaintiff is seeking equitable, rather than legal, relief, a court will determine the amount in controversy by considering the 1. value of the harm suffered by the plaintiff and 2. cost of compliance by the defendant.
-Citizenship
Citizenship refers to a person's domicile, which is evidenced by his 1. Physical presence and 2. Intent to permanently reside there.
-Corporation's Citizenship
A corporation is a citizen of 1. its state of incorporation and of 2. its principal place of business, i.e. its headquarters.
Diversity
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is valid when there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Erie Doctrine
Under Erie, a federal court must generally apply federal procedural law and state substantive law if there is no federal law directly on point.
Substantive vs. Procedural
Oftentimes it is difficult for courts to distinguish between which laws are substantive and which are procedural. Thus, the courts have various tests to assist in this determination. The three most commonly used are 1. Outcome determinative test, 2. Balance of interests, and 3. Forum shopping deterrence.
Outcome Determinative
A law that directly affects the outcome of a case is substantive.
Balance of interests
The court will balance the interest of the state in having its law applied with those of the federal court.
Forum Shopping Deterrence
The court must apply state law if not doing so would cause litigants to flock to federal courts.
Statute of Limitations
A plaintiff is generally barred from filing a claim once the statute of limitations has run. Typically, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or should have known, that they have a valid cause of action.
Erie
Under Erie, a federal court must generally apply federal procedural law and state substantive law if there is no federal law directly on point. Although the statute of limitations is arguably both procedural and substantive, courts tend to apply the state statute of limitations to diversity actions filed in a state court.
Relation back of amendments to a claim
An amendment to a claim in a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back, and the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading.
Relation back of amendments to a party
An amendment to a party in a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back, and the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if it rises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence and if, within the period for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits and (2) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.
Motion to Dismiss Based on Defendant's Third Party Joinder Defeating Diversity
A defendant that joins another party for indemnification does not destroy diversity regardless of that party's citizenship. The rationale is that the joined party is actually a defendant only as to the defendant seeking indemnification and therefore has no effect on the original plaintiff's standing.