Civ Pro Subj Matter Jxn Analysis

	1. Diversity in non-fed. claims (§1332)
	2. By §1331 Gen Fed Quest. Jxn (restrictive reading)
	3. By specif. statute from Cong. opening up the Cts
	4. Art III of the Const (well pleaded complaints of Mottley Case)

Basis 4 non-fed claims 2 B in Fed. Ct.
	1. Diversity §1332
	2. Suppl Jxn §1367

Lack of Subj. Matter Jxn
	1. By Rule 12)h)3, can throw the case out any X; active role by 
	the Ct.
	2. Parties must still obey the judge even when lacks subj. matter jxn
	3. Subj. 2 collateral attack

Collateral Attack
	1. Clear lack of subj matter jxn
	2. Jxn quest. not litigated
	3. Policy is strong against ct. acting beyond the jxnal limit
	4. If contested axn, NO justifiable int.'s of reliance + 1) subj. 
	matter plainly 
	beyond or 2) infringe on auth. of another agency of govt or 3) no 
	pwr 2 
	subpeona witnesses 4 fair proced.

Diversity Jxn §1332
	1. Domicile 
	2. Min. Amt.
	3. Compl. diversity rule from Strawbridge; no P & D from same state

Suppl. Jxn §1367
	1. If 1 true claim, can sweep in other claims by nucleus of 
	common fact test
	2. Jud. Pwr by Art III
	3. Discretion--1) novel state claim; 2) fed claim dismissed; 3) 
	state issues 
	predominates; 4) exceptional circs
	4. No impleading that would destroy diversity 

Arising Under §1331
	1. Express/implied C/A in fed. statute that Cong. intended 2 open 
	up the cts
	2. Implied C/A only in Const. Amend. & old Cong. statute
	3. Arises under the law that created C/A

Civ Pro Venue Jxn Analysis

Orig. Venue
	1. Follow §1391
	2. Specif. statute w/spec. venue trumps gen. §1391

Lack of Venue
	1. Forum non conveniens
	2. Transfer by §1406
	3. Waived if not set up like pers. jxn by Rule 12)b)3
	4. Can't raise this defense 4 collateral attack

Change of Venues
	1. Removal
	2. Transfer
	3. Tied w/orig. jxn

§1391 Orig. Venue Jxn
	1. Diversity & other axns, venue where D resides & where subst. 
	events gives 
	rise 2 the claim
	2. Diversity--venue where Ds R subj 2 pers. jxn v. other 
	axns--venue wherever 
	D is found
	3. Venue NOT where P resides

Removal §1441
	1. Only remove where orig. was able 2 bring 2 where axn pending
	2. If diversity, remove only if none of the Ds in the state where 
	the case is
	3. Suppl Jxn cases can B removed
	4. Removal only by D

Transfer §1404, §1406, §1631
	1. Where it orig'ly could've brought
	2. Justice & Conveniences sake
	3. Transferor's law holds unless its 2 cure improper venue/pers 
	defect in which 
	case transferee's law holds
	4. Edges out forum non conveniens

Civ Pro Choice of Law Analysis

Trend from State proced. & Fed subst law 2 State subst. & Fed Proced. law

	1. Uniformity w/in Fed. ct. sys v. uniformity w/in the state
	2. Forum shopping encouraged v. forum shopping discouraged
	3. Choice of law if diversity v. avoid inequitable adm. of law


	1. Must apply state subst law (incling conflict of law rules)
	2. Must apply fed. rules of civ pro
	3. If there's no fed Rule/statute, apply twin aim of Erie & Byrd test
		1) Discourage forum shop
		2) Avoid inequitable adm. of law
		3) Follow fed. rule if state rules disrupt fed. sys. even 
		if outcome det.


Back to Law School Notes