Declining Supplemental Jurisd. Standard of Appellate Review “Standard of review” What mean?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program Litigation & Procedure Introduction To Litigation Litigation & Procedure Introduction.
Advertisements

1 Agenda for 14th Class Admin – Name plates – Handouts Slides Supplemental Jurisdiction – Lunch this Friday Meet outside Rm. 433 (Faculty Lounge) Review.
Civil Litigation I Parties & Jurisdiction Not that kind of party!
Chapter 2: Court Systems and Jurisdiction
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
TODAY’S CLASS Announcements Where We Are & What We’re Doing Skills: Reading Cases Washington Equip. Mfg. p. 145 Skills: Arguing From Precedent Burnham,
Civil Litigation. 2  CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ◦ 7 JUSTICES  CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS ◦ 6 DISTRICTS  CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURTS—SUPERIOR COURTS ◦ ONE.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – LA 310. FEDERAL AND STATE COURT SYSTEMS.
Slides developed by Les Wiletzky Wiletzky and Associates Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. Traditional, Alternative, and.
1 Agenda for 25th Class Admin – Handouts – Name plates – Lunch today Meet at 11:45 outside Rm 433 (Faculty Lounge) Subject matter jurisdiction – Review.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.
UMW v. Gibbs Gibbs – What Were P’s Legal Theories? Federal –Secondary Boycott State –Tortious Interference –Unlawful Conspiracy.
Spring 1993 Exam. Paul’s Citizenship US because _________________. At birth, he’s a citizen of ______. –Because _____________________. –Not because __________________.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (US 1981). member of Minn workforce – commuted to work there Allstate present and doing business in Minn Post-event move of.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.
Legal Environment of Business (Management 518) Professor Charles H. Smith The Court System (Chapter 2) Spring 2005.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS A Critical Thinking Approach Fourth Edition Nancy K. Kubasek Bartley A. Brennan M. Neil Browne Nancy K. Kubasek Bartley.
Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany CONTEMPORARY BUSINESS AND ONLINE COMMERCE LAW 6 th Edition.
Thurs. Sept. 13. constitutional restrictions on service.
1 Agenda for 15th Class Admin – Handouts – Name plates – Lunch this Wednesday (3/12) Meet outside Rm. 433 (Faculty Lounge) – Summer RA work Review of joinder.
Tuesday, Nov. 13. necessary parties Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. A person.
Thurs. Sept. 20. federal subject matter jurisdiction diversity and alienage jurisdiction.
Dispute Resolution Chapter 2. Judicial Review Marbury v. Madison –Establishes the idea of judicial review.
1 Agenda for 25th Class Name plates out Introduction to Diversity Jurisdiction Discussion of mediation & court visit Settlement (continued) Fees Next class:
Copyright © 2011 by Jeffrey Pittman.  Note the difference between federal and state court systems in the U.S., and the key concept of judicial review.
The Paralegal Professional Chapter Six The Court System.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.
The American Court System Chapter 3. Why Study Law And Court System? Manager Needs Understanding Managers Involved In Court Cases As Party As Witness.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.
1 Agenda for 14th Class Admin – Handouts – Name plates Midsemester feedback Class actions Intro to subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.
1 Agenda for 25th Class Name plates out Venue Mock mediation. Friday Nov 2, 11-12:30 Court visit either Monday October 29 or Nov 5. 9:30-12:30 –LLV conflict.
28 USC 1367 Constitutional (“Gibbs”) Limit 1367’s Basic Statutory Limit: Same“Case & Controversy” And the Test Is?
The Judicial System The Courts and Jurisdiction. Courts Trial Courts: Decides controversies by determining facts and applying appropriate rules Appellate.
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved Slides developed by Les Wiletzky PowerPoint Slides to Accompany ESSENTIALS OF BUSINESS AND.
Thurs., Nov. 15. Supplemental Jurisdiction P(NY) D(NY) I(NY) federal securities state law fraud state law breach of contract state law Insurance contract.
Civil Procedure 2003 Class 30: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental Jurisdiction Nov
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure 2005 Class 31: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Supplemental Jurisdiction II, Removal Nov. 2, 2005.
1 Agenda for 34th Class Slide handout Next week –Monday. No class –Wednesday. Regular class 10-11:15, Rm. 103 –Friday. Rescheduled class. 1:20-2:35, Rm.
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2003 CLASS 3 (8/29/03) STAGES AND ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS OF A CIVIL ACTION Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor.
Chapter 2: Court Systems and Jurisdiction
Monday, Aug. 28.
Course Introduction Review
Thursday, Aug. 24.
Mon., Sept. 16.
COURT SYSTEMS AND JURISDICTION
Article III of the Constitution The Courts
Discovering The National Judiciary
Examples Byron from Iowa is arrested by Keats, an Iowa police officer. Byron claims Keats used excessive force and sues him under a federal civil rights.
Wed., Sept. 14.
Fri., Oct. 31.
Let’s Begin w/ the Basics
Wed., Oct. 29.
Monday, Sept. 3.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court
Discovering The National Judiciary
Wed., Oct. 17.
Conflict of laws Today we will talk about Conflict of Laws, which occurs when the laws of two or more different jurisdictions could apply to a particular.
COURT SYSTEMS AND JURISDICTION
Requirements for Where to File Suit
Thursday, Aug. 31.
Sources of Law Legislature – makes law Executive – enforces law
The Federal Court System
Article III of the Constitution The Courts
Jurisdiction Original vs. Appellate jurisdiction
Presentation transcript:

Declining Supplemental Jurisd. Standard of Appellate Review “Standard of review” What mean?

TAKEAWAYS Supplemental jurisdiction Black Letter Law Jurisdictional power over add’l claims Article III Constitutional foundation “same case or controversy” “Common nucleus of operative facts” Ordinarily expected to try in one proceeding

TAKEAWAYS Supplemental jurisdiction Black Letter Law 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) & (b) Original jurisdiction Same case or controversy under Art. III Diversity cases No supplemental jurisdiction Many joinder situations If undermines complete diversity

TAKEAWAYS Supplemental jurisdiction Black Letter Law 28 U.S.C. § 1337(c) Reasons to decline jurisdiction Novel or complex issue of State law State claim substantially predominates D.Ct. dismissed claims w/ original jurisdiction Exceptional circumstances

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction Venue Venue Transfer Forum non conveniens

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Federal Court SMJ Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal question 28 U.S.C. §1331 Diversity of citizenship 28 U.S.C. §1332 Supplem. 28 U.S.C. §1367 (1990) Removal 28 U.S.C. §1441

BLACK LETTER LAW 28 U.S.C. §1441 Problem Set Comments Remove if court would have original jurisd. § 1441(b) Exception for diversity cases A defendant is citizen of forum state Removal doesn’t mean pl’s forum choice wrong Concurrent jurisdiction Q7. Should refer to § 1441(f) not (e) Questions

INTRODUCTORY HYPOTHETICALS Variation #1: Lewis sues 2 def’s in state court Caterpillar & Whayne 1 diverse, 1 not diverse? May defendant(s) remove? No “complete diversity” req’t not met

INTRODUCTORY HYPOTHETICALS Variation #2 Within 1 year of filing non-diverse defendant settles claim against that defendant is dismissed. May remaining diverse defendant remove? Yes § 1446(b) “ case... has become removable”

INTRODUCTORY HYPOTHETICALS Variation one year from filing plaintiff & non-diverse defendant announced & signed settlement agreement. But claim against settling defendant not yet dismissed May the remaining diverse defendant remove? No - § 1446(b) – not > 1 yr after filing

SKILLS: READING CASES The Court’s Reasoning Was there complete diversity between the parties when the case was filed? as of 6/22/90 (one year from filing)? After Whayne was dismissed? Removal proper at each point? Result?

SKILLS: READING CASES Distinguishing Cases Distinguish Mottley (p. 217) Distinguish Capron (p. 226) Distinguish Saadah (p. 236)

TAKEAWAYS Removal Conceptual Frameworks Removal Statute Reading Skills MAP on §1441 Case Reading Skills

TAKEAWAYS Removal Black Letter Law Remove if Fed ct original jurisdiction + in diversity cases no defendant is citizen of state where lawsuit was brought 30 days to remove From date of filing Or from time federal jurisdiction apparent 1 year time limit Effect of Caterpillar?

TAKEAWAYS Subject Matter Jurisdiction Black Letter Law Removal Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §1441 Available if d. ct. would have original smj Federal question cases Citizenship of parties irrelevant Diversity cases Only if none of defendants is Citizen of state in which action is brought