FEDERAL JURISDICTION & PROCEDURE OUTLINE

I. GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL COURTS

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction  Can only hear lawsuits when
there is subject matter jurisdiction:
a. §1331 “Federal question:  arising under federal law (federal DEFENSE is NOT enough
to get federal SMJ)
b. §1332 Diversity cases  all plaintiffs diverse from all defendants
c. Supplemental SMJ
2. Federal court must have SMJ over each claim in the lawsuit.
3. Pleading and proving SMJ
a. Burden is on the party invoking SMJ  pl’s complaint or D’s notice of removal must
affirmatively allege facts to show the basis of federal jurisdiction.
b. Must exist at the time of the filing of the complaint or notice of removal
c. SMJ defects are not waivable  parties cannot confer SMJ via consent
4. Noticing an SMJ defect
a. If noticed in a case originally in federal court, D must file motion to dismiss under FRCP
12(b)(1)
b. If noticed in a case removed to federal court, pl. must file motion to remand for lack of
SMJ under §1447.
c. Any party may object to the SMJ defect at any time during the litigation
i. If the judge notices it at any time before the litigation is final, he has the duty to
dismiss the suit sua sponte.
ii. If it is not noticed before trial, either party may seek dismissal on appeal on the
grounds of lack of SMJ.
5. Consequences of SMJ defect:
a. In §1332 suit filed in federal court, trial judge may dismiss non-diverse party(ies) before trial
and the suit may proceed
i. If the non-diverse party qualifies as indispensable (FRCP 19), then the party cannot
be dismissed and the entire suit must be dismissed.
b. In §1332 suit removed to federal court, judgment is valid if claim against non-diverse party
is dismissed or resolved (via settlement) before trial
B. Standing
1. Actual or immediately threatened injury
2. Fairly traceable to D’s conduct
3. That is likely to be redressed with a favorable judicial decision
C. §1331 Federal Question
1. Federal courts have jurisdiction of cases arising under federal law  constitution, US laws,
treaties.
a. Federal cause of action
b. Interpretation of federal law
c. State cause of action “arising under” federal law
i. Pl. alleges a right or interest that is substantially founded on federal law,
ii. Pl. is required to plead and prove a substantial proposition of federal law to prevail
2. Federal question must be substantial. Merrell Dow.
3. Mottley: well-pleaded complaint rule  federal question must appear in plaintiff’s federal or state
complaint or petition.
a. D’s answer is irrelevant to getting FQ SMJ.
b. Federal counterclaim does not create FQ SMJ.
 c. §2201 Federal Declaratory Judgment Act: pl. must show that he would be entitled under
relevant law to bring a hypothetical coercive suit against D, either for damages or an
injunction, that would satisfy Mottley. Skelly Oil.
4. When there is no reference to FQ in pl’s state law complaint or petition
a. If the nature of the right is clearly set forth, the lack of reference to federal law is not
controlling.
b. Complete federal preemption also creates FQ SMJ (unless it is merely D’s defense).
5. No express jurisdictional amount (some statutes may have their own requirement) and no complete
diversity requirement.
D. §1332 Diversity  TWO Requirements
1. Diversity
a. Strawbridge: there must be complete diversity between the parties in a federal lawsuit  this
means that all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants. Examples:
i. Every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant
ii. D must be diverse from all third-party impleaded defendant opponents
iii. Cross-claiming pl (or D) must be diverse from all pls (or Ds) against whom the
cross claim is brought.
iv. Intervenor must be diverse from opposing party(ies)
v. Third party impleaded D must be diverse from plaintff(s) when bringing FRCP 14
claim against plaintiff
b. Diversity attaches at time of filing
i. Moving to defeat jurisdiction is acceptable as long as it’s done before filing.
c. Erie doctrine: a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply substantive state law.
i. Determining if a rule is substantive or procedural: use outcome determination test 
if it will determine the outcome of the lawsuit, it is substantive.
a. I.e. laws that establish remedies, statutes of limitation, etc.
ii. Klaxon rule: state choice-of-law rules are substantive laws under Erie and thus must
be followed by the federal courts in the state forum.
a. The federal court must apply the same choice of law rules that would be
followed by the state supreme court of the forum state.
b. Example: if there is a suit filed in Oklahoma, use whatever choice of law
rules Oklahoma’s state supreme court would use.
c. LA choice of law rules: generally, the serious impairment test. LA’s choice-
of-law rules can be found in the LA civil code.
d. Klaxon does not determine if a state court judgment is preclusive.
d. Direct conflict between federal and state procedures
i. Procedural rule in federal statute > state procedural rule that directly conflicts with
federal statute
a. Example: peremptory strikes
ii. FRCP rule “on point” with regard to the issue > state procedural rule
iii. Substantive state rule > FRCP rule on point
iv. No FRCP rule on point  use state procedural rule
v. No conflict between FRCP and state rule  Byrd doctrine will determine what to
apply.
a. Unless there is a major counterveiling federal policy that trumps the state
practice, use the state law if not doing so would lead to forum shopping by pls.
or unequal application.
e. Determining citizenship
i. For people  state citizenship is the state of domicile = physical presence + intent to
remain indefinitely
 a. A person will retain old domicile until acquiring new one  to change
domicile, need both physical presence in a new place and an intent to remain
there indefinitely.
b. Can only have one state domicile and one state citizenship
c. US citizen abroad may lose state citizenship by being abroad and intending to
remain there indefinitely and will not acquire a new state of
citizenship/domicile.
ii. Citizens of foreign states 
a. Good §1332 SMJ will be present under the following two scenarios
i. Suit between alien and state citizen
ii. Suit between state citizens (on each side) with alien as additional
party (on one or both sides)
b. No SMJ in these two scenarios
i. Suit between two aliens with no US citizens present on either side
ii. Suit between two aliens with US citizen as additional party
iii. Corporations  two sources of citizenship
a. All sites of state and foreign incorporation
b. State of the principal place of business either in US or abroad
i. “Nerve center” of the corporation
ii. The place where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control,
and coordinate its activities.”
iii. Generally, the headquarters
iv. Hertz: if the corporation divides its command and coordinating
functions among officers who work at several different locations, then a
court should focus on the center of overall direction, control, and
coordination of the corporation.
iv. Non-corporate entities that derive state citizenship from those of its members 
Congress has not defined the sources of state citizenship for non-corporate entities in
§1332, so federal courts must treat any non-corporate entity as deriving its citizenship
from those of its member(s)
a. Only one member
i. Sole proprietorship
ii. Person doing business as his company
iii. Owner of a company who never filed incorporation papers
b. More than one member
i. Partnership
ii. Limited partnership
iii. LLP
iv. LLC
v. Unincorporated association
c. Types of members who can confer citizenship
i. Person
ii. Corporation
iii. Non-corporate entity
v. State agency or political subdivision: will have state citizenship if it is separate and
distinct from the state  same criteria is used as to determine sovereign immunity
under the 4th Amendment.
f. Statutory attributions of state citizenship
i. Direct action suit: LA (and other states) permit pl. to bring a direct action suit
against only D’s insurance company instead of both the insured AND the insurance
company  insured’s citizenship will be attributed to the insurance company
 a. The insurance company gets the insured’s citizenship in addition to whatever
citizenship it already has.
b. Don’t use this rule if insured is joined in the suit or pl. is suing his own
insurance company.
ii. Representative citizenship: when party has a legal right to sue to represent the
interests of another, the citizenship of the representative is ordinarily the one used for
diversity purposes  but there is a special §1332 rule:
a. Representatives of decedents or infants/incompetents are deemed to be the
citizens only of the state or the decedent/infant/incompetent they represent
b. Does not apply to plaintiffs in wrongful death or survival actions suing in
their own capacity.
g. Exceptions to diversity jurisdiction  federal courts will not hear these cases
i. Divorce, alimony, custody
ii. Actual probate and annulment of a will or a suit trying to reach property in the
custody of a state probate court.
2. Jurisdictional amount of over $75,000
a. Must be exclusive of interest and costs, except for:
i. Attorney’s fees if state law provides for their recovery or if a contract or other
instrument upon which the suit is based allows for their recovery
ii. Interest, if part of the underlying obligation (i.e. interest owing on a defaulted note or
in a suit based on bond coupons)
b. Attaches at time of filing
c. Pl’s jurisdictional amount allegations
i. Must be good faith
ii. Facially apparent standard: federal court determines from the face of the
complaint whether the amount in controversy is likely to exceed the jurisdictional
amount. If the plaintiff alleges a specific and sufficient amount in controversy in the
complaint, this will be sufficient.
iii. Standard: preponderance
iv. Rebutting pl’s jurisdictional amount  To effect dismissal because of insufficient
JA, D must show that pl. cannot recover the jurisdictional amount to a legal certainty
at the pleading stage.
d. D’s showing of jurisdictional amount for removal to federal court
i. In notice of removal, D must show by a preponderance that the amount in
controversy is likely to exceed $75,000
ii. Default rule: sum demanded by pl. in good faith is the amount, with two exceptions
when D may assert the amount:
a. When pl. seeks nonmonetary relief in initial pleading
b. When pl. seeks money judgment and
1. State practice does not permit demand for a specific sum by pl.
2. State practice “permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount
demanded in the plaintiff’s initial pleading
iii. If D chooses to assert an amount in controversy in the notice of removal, removal is
proper if he shows by a preponderance that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.
iv. D will have one year from the date the suit is filed to file a notice of removal if he
later discovers that the JA is sufficient  courts may ignore the one-year time limit if
pl. deliberately failed to disclose the actual amount in controversy to prevent removal.
e. Special cases
i. Installment contracts:
a. Pl. must show that the direct legal effect on the judgment under governing
contract law will cause the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000 
 governing contract law may provide that the direct legal effect on the judgment
is the entire amount of the debt or only the amount of past due payments.
b. Examples of when the entire debt is the amount in controversy:
1. Plaintiff files suit to cancel the contract for fraud.
2. There is an acceleration clause in the contract.
ii. Aggregation:
a. Single pl, single D
1. Pl. may aggregate claims against the same D to meet the jurisdictional
amount.
2. Under FRCP 18, the claims may be related or unrelated.
3. Still need diversity of parties
b. Single pl, multiple Ds
1. Pl. must have the requisite amount in controversy w/ each D.
c. Multiple Pls, single D
1. One pl. must have the requisite amount in controversy w/ D  the
other pls. will be allowed to aggregate their claims if there is complete
diversity of parties and the other claims are so related to the original
claim as to form part of the same case or controversy (§1367).
2. Exception: pls. may aggregate claims based on a single title or right
or a common and undivided interest (i.e. partnership debt = common
and undivided interest)
d. Multiple pls, multiple Ds
1. Each pl. must have the requisite amount in controversy w/ each D.
E. Removal Jurisdiction
1. If SMJ exists in a lawsuit that pl. chose to file in state court, D is entitled to remove it to federal
court  D must show that pl. could have originally brought the suit in federal court
2. Procedure
a. D files a notice or removal
F. Other Requirements
1. All parties must satisfy all FRCP rules (this does not confer SMJ, however)
2. Venue
3. Personal jurisdiction  “minimum contacts”
G. Preclusive Effect of Other State Court Judgments
1. §1738 Federal Full Faith & Credit statute: provides that the judgment of any state court shall
receive the same full faith and credit in federal court that the judgment would receive in the courts of
the state in which the judgment was rendered.
2. Therefore, the judgment may have a preclusive effect on the federal court.
3. To determine if preclusive effect should be given by a federal court to a state court’s judgment, the
federal court must look to the case law of the state in which the judgment was rendered and follow
the preclusive effect rules of that state’s case law.

II. JOINDER
A. FRCP 18 & 20 – Claim and Party Joinder
1. FRCP 18 – claim joinder
a. A party may join together unrelated claims against a single party opponent.
2. FRCP 20 – permissive party joinder
a. Plaintiffs may join together in one suit when they assert a claim to relief arising out of the
same transaction or occurrence and when a common question of law or fact will arise in
the suit.
b. Ds may be joined together in one suit when a right of relief is asserted against them that
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence (or a series of transactions/occurrences) and
when a common question of law or fact will arise in the suit.
 i. Right to relief against these Ds may be asserted jointly, severally, or in the
alternative.
B. FRCP 19 – Required Party Joinder
1. Required parties: parties who are required to be joined is feasible. Three situations where parties
are required:
a. Their absence will provide incomplete relief for existing parties
b. The absent party is so situated that disposition of the suit without them will impair or
impede protection of that party’s interest
c. The party’s absence will leave the existing parties subject to a substantial risk of multiple
or inconsistent obligations
2. Feasible: if joinder would make venue improper and the joined party objects to venue, the court
must dismiss the joined party. Joinder that destroys complete diversity is also not feasible.
3. Determining if the should proceed w/out the absent party (if joinder is not feasible)  factors to
consider:
a. Existence of prejudice to either the absent person or existing parties if a judgment is
rendered w/out the required party
b. Extent to which prejudice could be lessened or avoided
i. Protective provisions in the judgment
ii. Shaping of the relief, etc.
c. Adequacy of judgment if suit proceeds w/out the party
d. Adequacy of remedy for pl. if suit is dismissed
C. FRCP 13 Claims
1. Compulsory Counterclaim
a. Claim brought by D against pl. who is suing him.
b. Should be brought in D’s answer
c. Arises out of same transaction or occurrence
d. §1367 Supplemental jurisdiction attaches
e. Must be asserted or D will be precluded from raising it as a claim at a later proceeding
2. Permissive Counterclaim
a. No factual overlap w/ main claim needed
b. Need independent jurisdiction under §1331 or §1332  can’t use §1367 supplemental
jurisdiction
i. Federal question, or
ii. Diversity of parties and jurisdictional amount
c. If not raised, will not be lost  D can raise it as a claim in a separate suit later
3. FRCP 13(h) – joining claim against non-party to counterclaim
a. Counterclaimant may join a non-party for a just adjudication of the counterclaim as long as
the claim against the non-party arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the
counterclaim and shares a common question of law and fact/ the counterclaim.
4. Cross-claim
a. Claim by a party against a co-party.
b. Generally by one D against a co-D  must be brought in answer
c. Must arise out of same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original action
or a counterclaim  can make a claim for indemnity as a cross-claim.
d. §1367 supplemental jurisdiction attaches
e. FRCP 13(h)  a cross-claimant can join a non-party to adjudicate a counterclaim as long as
the rules of FRCP 20 are satisfied.
D. FRCP 14 – Impleader
1. D files 3rd party complaint against 3rd party D who may be liable to him for all or part of pl’s claim
against the original D  claim of derivative liability
2. Timing: D must serve complaint to new D w/in 14 days of serving answer to pl. or obtain leave of
court to serve it later
 3. §1367 supplemental jurisdiction attaches to D’s claim against third-party D. However, pl. will need
independent jurisdiction under §1331 or §1332 if he wishes to stake a claim against the third-party
D.
E. FRCP 24 – Intervention
1. Types
a. Intervention of right
i. Unconditional right to intervene conferred by federal statute, or
ii. Person claiming interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of
the federal action, and is so situated that disposition of the action in his absence would
impair or impede his ability to protect that interest.
iii. §1367 supplemental jurisdiction for all D-intervenors of right where pl’s claim is
based on §1332 and all intervenors of right in non-diversity suits.
iv. Pl-intervenor in a diversity case will need independent jurisdiction  diversity from
other parties
b. Permissive intervention
i. Person claiming interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of
the federal action, whose interest is adequately represented by existing parties,
ii. Federal statute confers a conditional right to intervene, or
iii. Common question of law or fact between main action and the party’s claim.
iv. Independent jurisdiction needed.
F. Interpleader
1. §1335 Statutory interpleader
a. Requires minimal diversity among claimants  any two claimants are diverse
b. Amount in controversy: $500
c. Nationwide service of process available
d. Venue is proper where any claimant residents
e. Stakeholder must deposit the property with the court or post a bond
2. FRCP 22 Interpleader
a. Complete diversity required  stakeholder must be diverse from all claimants
b. Amount in controversy must exceed $75,000
c. Normal personal jurisdiction and venue rules apply
d. Why use this one instead of §1335  if all claimants are from one state
e. Stakeholder may deposit the property with the court or post a bond, but it is not required.
3. Operation of interpleader
a. Stakeholder may invoke interpleader in complaint or counterclaim
b. Cannot be used by a tortfeasor to consolidate multiparty actions when D has a limited or
finite insurance policy or might go bankrupt.
G. FRCP 23 -- Class Action
1. Court will permit a class action if
a. There are so many members that joinder is impracticable,
b. The claims of class members have common questions of law and fact,
c. The claims of the representatives are typical of those of other members, and
d. The representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
2. Consequences of class treatment
a. If a class is certified, the class members are bound by the results
b. After certification, the suit shall not be dismissed or compromised w/out court approval and
notice to class members.
3. §1332 Complete diversity: class representatives must be diverse from Ds.
4. Jurisdictional amount:
a. Class action against single D: when one class member has a claim that exceeds $75,000, the
other class members will be allowed to use §1367 supplemental jurisdiction to stay in the suit.
 b. Class action against multiple Ds: theoretically, all plaintiffs must meet the jurisdictional
amount against all Ds  but the Class Action Fairness Act provides unique jurisdictional
amount rules for certain cases.

III. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND JOINDER

A. §1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction and Joinder of Claims
1. §1367 allows for supplemental jurisdiction of a state-law claim that has a common nucleus of
operative fact with a claim based on §1331.
a. CNOF = so related to claims in the action within the district court’s original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy  rough factual overlap;
may seek different kinds of relief and rely on different legal theories.
b. All supplemental claims are state-law claims that cannot satisfy §1332 SMJ requirements,
jurisdictional amount, or both.
2. Safeguards
a. CNOF
b. Discretion of federal courts to dismiss a supplemental claim that does share a CNOF with an
original claim, if:
i. The supplemental SMJ claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law,
ii. Supplemental SMJ substantially predominates over the original SMJ claim,
iii. The original SMJ claim has been dismissed
iv. Other exceptional circumstances
c. Express ban of use of §1367 in certain contexts
3. For removal to federal court, the original claim must be removable  cannot remove the
supplemental claim by itself.
4. When original claim is based on…
a. §1331 FQ: claims must be related by sharing a CNOF
b. §1332: don’t really need to invoke supplemental jurisdiction, because pl. can aggregate
claims against a single D.
B. §1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction and Joinder of Parties
1. Supplemental jurisdiction also includes claims that include the joinder of additional parties.
a. When a CNOF exists between an original claim against D1 and a state-law claim against D2,
court will have same discretion to hear the claim or dismiss it, if appropriate.
2. When original claim against D1 is based on…
a. §1331 FQ: Establishing same transaction or occurrence will establish CNOF.
b. §1332 SMJ: STO or CNOF is irrelevant, because a state-law claim that violates §1332
cannot be joined if the original state-law claim meets the §1332 requirements  need original
jurisdiction.
D. When Co-Plaintiffs Invoke Supplemental Jurisdiction
1. One plaintiff may bring an original claim against D under §1332, and a co-plaintiff may bring a
§1367 supplemental claim against the same D for an amount less than $75,000 as long as complete
diversity exists  Exxon-Mobil
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction for Claims Under FRCP 13, 14, or 24
1. For these claims, §1367 supplemental jurisdiction will exist whether Pl’s original claim is based on
§1331 or §1332
a. Compulsory counterclaim against opponent  §1367 supplemental jurisdiction exists
because it arises out of STO
b. Cross-claim against co-party  §1367 supplemental jurisdiction exists because it arises out
of STO
c. FRCP 14 impleader  §1367 supplemental jurisdiction exists
d. FRCP 24 intervention of right  §1367 supplemental jurisdiction exists
e. Other FRCP 14 claims  §1367 supplemental jurisdiction exists
i. Impleaded 3rd party D files FRCP 14 claim against plaintiff
 ii. Plaintiff files FRCP 14 claim against impleaded 3rd party D
2. For these claims, Pl’s original claim must be based on §1331 FQ, not §1332
a. Plaintiff-intervenor’s claim
b. Plaintiff’s FRCP 14 claim against impleaded 3rd party D
2. For these claims, §1367 supplemental jurisdiction is never available
f. Permissive counterclaim  no §1367 supplemental jurisdiction because it only shares a
common question of law and fact  need independent jurisdiction
g. FRCP 24 Permissive intervention claim  no §1367 supplemental jurisdiction because there
is no CNOF relationship  need independent jurisdiction

IV. REMOVAL
A. Removal Process Under §1441
1. A case can only be removed to federal court when it could have been brought there in the first place
 need either §1331 or §1332 jurisdiction.
2. When D fails to seek removal in a timely fashion, he will waive the right to remove and the case
will be heard in state court instead.
3. If the removed suit has an SMJ defect that is later noticed by the parties or court  §1447 remand
procedure is used. If the defect existed on the day the notice of removal was filed in federal court,
plaintiff’s failure to file a motion to remand will not waive the defect and the court must remand to
state court sua sponte whenever it notices the defect.
a. Exceptions to remand requirement:
i. Caterpillar
ii. Fraudulent joinder doctrine  pl. has joined someone into the suit in bad faith to
defeat SMJ
4. Removal procedure defect  if D does not comply with the removal rules in §§ 1441, 1446, and
1446, it will create a removal procedure defect in the suit. Plaintiff must object by filing a timely
motion to remand, but if he does not do so in time, he will waive the right to object. These are the
removal procedure defect:
a. All Ds do not join in notice  all properly joined and served defendants must join in or
consent to removal.
i. Sign notice, or
ii. Provide written consent
b. Untimely filing of notice (must be filed w/in 30 days)
i. If suit removable when filed: 30-day period begins to run on date of formal service
(service of both petition and citation)
ii. Multiple Ds served at different times: each D gets 30 days  later served D may file
notice and earlier served D whose 30 days is up may join in and consent.
iii. Suit not removable when filed: 30-day period begins to run when pl. amends the
petition or complaint to add a §1331 claim or dismisses a non-diverse D to make
the suit removable under §1332
c. Removed suit includes claims that the federal courts are prohibited from hearing, such as
(court should sever and remand this claim if there is a proper §1331 claim also present):
i. State worker’s comp claim
ii. FELA claim
iii. Jones Act
iv. All writs act
d. Suit is removed to wrong federal district  remedy is a transfer, not a remand
e. Diversity-only defects for suits removed on basis of §1332 SMJ
i. Forum state D present
ii. Removal more than one year after state suit filed (unless pl. acted in bad faith, such
as deliberately failing to disclose the actual amount in controversy)
B. Removal Procedure
 1. D must timely file a notice of removal and sign it in accordance with FRCP 11 the entire state
court suit will then be removed to federal court, where any disputes about removal will be heard.
Federal court will sever and remand claims without original or supplemental SMJ.
a. Notice of removal = short and plain statement of the relevant facts and grounds for federal
SMJ. Must declare that all Ds join in the notice.
2. D must attach the documents from the state court suit to the notice  copies of all process,
pleadings, and orders served on Ds
3. D must file the notice and attachments in the federal district court for the district encompassing
the location where the state court suit is pending
4. After filing the notice of removal and attachments in federal court, D must serve Pl. a copy of these
documents, as well as a written notice to parties explaining how the case was removed.
5. D must also serve the written notice to state court, along w/ a copy of the notice of removal.
6. The adverse parties must receive a copy of the notice to the state court and vice versa.
7. State court may not proceed as soon as notice of removal is filed (even if removal is improper).
C. Pl’s Challenge to Removal  Motion to Remand
1. Plaintiff must file a motion to remand within 30 days of the date D filed the notice of removal in
federal court
a. Exception: if the federal court lacked SMJ over a removed case at the time of removal, the
case shall be remanded  no time limit. Two exceptions to the exception:
i. Caterpillar: If SMJ defect exists in §1332 suit on the date of removal but that defect
later disappears during the litigation because the non-diverse party is no longer present
in the suit, the judgment at trial will be jurisdictionally valid as long as the SMJ defect
disappeared before the date when the trial began.
ii. Fraudulent joinder doctrine: when pl. brings a state court suit against a diverse D and
non-diverse D, federal court will allow the suit to be removed under §1332 by the
diverse D, even though complete diversity does not exist at the time of removal, if these
requirements are met:
a. D must show that pl. had no reasonable possibility of recovery against the
non-diverse D, and
b. This showing allows the federal court to infer that pl’s purpose for joining the
non-diverse D was to defeat removal.
c. To rebut: pl. must affirmatively produce evidence of the basis of a
reasonable possibility of recovery against then non-diverse D.
D. Discretion to Remand §1367 Claims
1. If a suit is removed to federal court that includes one or more “original claims” under §1331 and
“supplemental claims” under §1367, the federal court is authorized to exercise the discretion to
remand the supplemental claims under the circumstances set forth by §1367(c)

V. PERSONAL JURISDICTION
A. General
1. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s ability to exercise power over a particular D or item or property.
2. Limits on personal jurisdiction:
a. Statutory limitation  state statutes decide over whom the state courts may exercise
jurisdiction
b. US Constitution  Due Process Clause
i. D must have adequate contacts w/ the forum state
ii. D must be given appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.
B. Types of Personal Jurisdiction
1. In Personam: forum has power over the person of a particular D  judgment creates a personal
obligation on D and is entitled to full faith and credit in all the other states
2. In Rem: forum state has power to adjudicate the rights of all persons in regards to a particular piece
of property  judgment will bind all persons regarding the property’s ownership and use
 3. Quasi In Rem: court has power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property
w/in the court’s control or the power to adjudicate disputes other than ownership based on the
presence of D’s property in the forum  D will not be personally bound by the judgment and the
judgment cannot be enforced against any other property belonging to D.
C. Statutory Limitations of In Personam Jurisdiction
1. Most states have statutes granting their courts in personam jurisdiction in the following situations:
a. D is present in forum state and personally served
i. There is no minimum time limit for how long D must be present  includes Ds who
are just passing through
ii. Exceptions
a. Pl. brings D into the state by fraud or force to serve him
b. Parties and witnesses only in the state for a judicial proceeding, or passing
through the state to get to a judicial proceeding elsewhere  these people have
immunity
b. D is domiciled in forum state
i. Domicile = presence + intent
ii. A US citizen domiciled abroad is still subject to personal jurisdiction in the US
c. D consents to jurisdiction
i. Express consent (contract, appointment of agent of service of process)
ii. Implied consent (motorists and other people who have an agent for service of process
designated by statute)
iii. Voluntary appearance (to contest the case w/out challenging personal jurisdiction)
d. D has committed acts bringing him within the state’s long-arm statute  two components
i. Sufficient contacts w/ the forum state
a. Whether sufficient minimum contacts exist between D and forum state so
that maintenance of the suit against D does not offend traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.
1. Purposeful availment: Contacts cannot be accidental
A. D must reach out to the forum in some way, such as
conducting business there
B. Court must find that through these contacts, D purposefully
availed himself of the “privilege of conducting activities within
the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its
laws.”
C. Stream of commerce: laws are unclear as to whether merely
placing an item in the stream of commerce is purposeful
availment or whether more is needed. McIntyre court rejected the
argument that D who did not have a single contact with the state
should foresee that his product might end up there simply
because it was put into the stream of commerce.
2. Foreseeability: it must be foreseeable that D’s activities make him
amendable to suit in the forum  D must know or reasonably anticipate
that his activities in the forum render it foreseeable that he may be sued
there.
ii. Fair play and substantial justice: The exercise of jurisdiction cannot offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Factors to consider:
a. Relatedness of the claim to the contact
1. If D’s in-state activity is not systematic or continuous, jurisdiction
will only be proper for causes of action arising from that activity.
2. If D does engage in systematic and continuous activity in the forum
state, the court could find this a sufficient basis for any cause of action
involving D.
 b. Convenience
1. Forum will be proper unless it is so gravely difficult and
inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage
compared to his opponent.
c. Forum state’s interest  does the forum state have a legitimate interest in
providing redress for its residents?
d. Due Process factors
1. Degree of convenience for pl.
2. Burden on D
3. Interest of forum state in exercising jurisdiction over the claim
4. Interstate efficiency, considering the location of witnesses and
evidence
5. The shared interest of the states in furthering fundamental substantive
social policies, considering availability of alternate forums

VI. VENUE
A. Statutory Definitions of Proper Venue under §1391
1. District(s) where D(s) Reside
a. Only one D  wherever they reside (if it’s an entity, this may be more than one place)
b. More than one D all residing in same state  any district where any one D resides
2. Venue in district(s) where substantial part of the events occurred
3. If the above two options do not yield a valid venue, venue is proper in any federal district in
which any D is subject to the federal court’s personal jurisdiction.
a. This generally applies when the events that give rise to the suit occur outside the US and
when the venue option relating to D’s residence is not available.
B. Residency for People and Entities
1. Natural person = domicile (includes lawful permanent resident)
2. Entity (capacity to sue and be sued in its own name) = any federal district in which the court has
personal jurisdiction over the entity as established by the entity’s minimum contacts with that federal
district
a. Special rule for corporation that has minimum contacts that establish residence in a state w/
more than one district:
i. Assign residency in each district that would qualify as a site of minimum contact if
each district were treated like a state
ii. If no minimum contact exists with any district, assign residency in the district with
the most significant contacts
C. Objection to Venue
1. Pre-answer FRCP 12(b) motion to dismiss for improper venue
2. Pleading in answer w/in 20 days of service of complaint and summons
3. If not made in one of the two above ways, it will be deemed waived
D. §1406 – Transfer of Venue When Venue is Improper
1. Court may grant motion to transfer venue under §1406 to federal district where venue is proper.
a. May also use §1406 to transfer a suit from a federal district where venue is proper but the
court lacks personal jurisdiction to another district where venue is proper and the court has
personal jurisdiction.
b. Substantive law of new state will apply
2. Court may hear a suit if the parties waive the right to object to improper venue
E. §1404 – Transfer When Venue is Proper
1. A federal court may transfer a suit from one federal district to any other district to which parties
have consented  “for the convenience of parties and Ws”/in the interests of justice
a. Substantive laws of transferor forum court will apply.
 VII. §1983 CIVIL RIGHTS SUITS
A. Basic Requirements
1. §1983 suit can be brought against any person
2. Acting under color of state or local law
3. For the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or US
law
B. Persons
1. Includes
a. State officials sued for damages in personal capacity
b. State officials sued for prospective relief (injunction or declaratory judgment) in their
official capacity
c. Local officials sued in any capacity
d. Local government entities or subdivisions (parishes, cities, school boards)
2. Excluded
a. State
b. State agency that qualifies as an arm of the state
c. State official sued in his or her official capacity for damages
C. Acting Under Color of State or Local Law
1. Enforcing a law that allegedly violates the constitution or federal law
2. Acting contrary to a law in the course of employment
D. Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- §1343(3), §1331
1. No exhaustion requirement
2. Concurrent jurisdiction  the §1983 action can be brought in state court
3. If there is a CNOF, can be joined together with a claim based on state law
4. Pl. can claim different types of relief against proper defendants for that time of relief in the same
action
E. §1983 Suits Against State Officials
1. 11th Amendment bar to SMJ
a. Prohibits suit against a state in federal court unless the state has consented  waiver must be
express; occurs only when a state voluntarily subjects itself to federal jurisdiction or clearly
declares that it intends to subject itself to federal court jurisdiction.
b. Applies to the state itself and arms of the state: agencies where the state would be obliged to
pay the money judgment against it
2. 11th Amendment does not apply to local agencies (cities, parishes) and governmental units of local
agencies  whether an entity is state or local is determined by state law.
3. An order denying 11th Amendment immunity is immediately reviewable under the collateral
order doctrine:
a. Order conclusively determines a disputed question,
b. Order resolves an important question that is separate from the merits, and
c. The other resolves an issue that is effectively unreviewable later, because the purpose of 11th
Amendment immunity will be defeated once a judgment is issued.
F. Ex Parte Young Circumvention to 11th Amendment Bar
1. Pl. may sue for an injunction of a declaratory judgment against state officials in their official
capacity if the following two conditions are met:
a. No ongoing state judicial proceedings against pl; and
b. State official is violating federal law or acting unconstitutionally.
G. §1983 Against Local Officials or Entities
1. For suits brought against a local entity or official in their official capacity, pl. must show that the
action taken or threatened was done pursuant to custom or policy of the entity. If suing an official in
his personal capacity, pl. does not have to make this showing.
2. Custom or policy that creates liability under §1983
a. Legislative decisions: laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, zoning decisions, etc.
 b. Policymaker decisions
c. Failure to train: generally, must show a pattern of similar constitutional violations by
untrained govt. employees
d. Inadequate screening of employee
3. Punitive damages are only available if pl. sues D in his personal capacity and makes a showing of
deliberate indifference.

VIII. ABSTENTION
A. Pullman Abstention
1. Requires federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction when pl. brings a federal court suit to
enjoin a state or local statute and the following conditions are met:
a. Pl’s claim is based on federal constitutional grounds, and
b. There is a threshold issue of unclear state law in the suit whose resolution could render the
federal court’s decision on the constitutional question unnecessary.
2. Invoked by motion of party of abstention of court on its own.
B. Buford Abstention
1. Requires federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in a case where pl. seeks an
injunction or declaration judgment in a suit that would require a federal court to review state
administrative decision making and fact-finding in fields that are traditionally subject to state
regulation, such as
a. Natural resource allocation
b. Oil drilling permits
c. Eminent domain
d. Administration of decedents’ estates
2. Standard: abstention appropriate when there are complex issues of state law, resulution of which
would be disruptive of state efforts to establish coherent policy w/ respect to a matter of substantial
public concern  ensure uniformity in the treatment of an essentially local problem.
3. If the federal question (statutory or constitutional) can be easily separated from the review of agency
decision making, abstention is not required.
4. Abstention results in dismissal for the federal action.
5. Cannot be invoked in suits for damages
C. Younger Abstention
1. Requires federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in a case where pl. seeks an
injunction or declaratory judgment against ongoing state criminal proceedings
a. Not proper when pl. only seeks damages.
b. Also applies to some civil cases: §1983 pl. seeks injunction from a federal court against
pending civil proceedings that implicate a vital state interest, i.e. bar disclipinary proceedings.
2. Younger exception: if ongoing state prosecution is in bad faith or for purposes of harassment.
3. Consequences: dismissal of suit.
D. Colorado River Abstention
1. Abstention if federal suit filed after a state case involving the same parties and same/similar issues
is filed in state court and there are exceptional circumstances that merit abstention.
E. §1341 Tax Injunction Act
1. Federal court may not enjoin the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under state or local law
when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had in state courts  also applies when pl. seeks
declaratory relief or damages for a wrongful tax assessment.

IX. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS

A. FRCP Service Rules
1. Service may be made by any person
a. Who is over age 18, and
b. Not a party to the lawsuit.
 2. Time limit: service of summons and complaint must occur within 120 days from the time of the
filing of the complaint, unless pl. shows good cause.
3. Service by first-class mail with a notice and request for waiver of formal service is also permitted 
if D fails to waive service, then service must be made in accordance w/ other valid procedures within
the 120-day time limit, with costs to be borne by D, unless good cause shown.
a. Mailing must contain: copy of complaint, request for waiver, two copies of waiver, prepaid
means of getting the executed waiver back to pl.
b. D has at least 30 days to return the waiver (from the date it was mailed).
c. If D executes the waiver, he has 60 days from the date the plaintiff sent the request to file an
answer.
d. Pl. should file the executed waiver in federal court as proof of substitute service.
e. Waiver of services does not constitute waiver of the right to object to defects in SMJ,
personal jurisdiction, or venue.
f. It D lacks good cause to refuse waiver, he must reimburse pl. for the costs of service charged
by a private process server, pay a reasonable attorneys fee to pl’s attorney for preparing the
motion for costs, and reimburse pl. for the court costs of the filing fee for filing the motion.
B. Methods for Delivery of Service (Absent Waiver)
1. Service on Competent Adult Individual
a. Delivery at dwelling: actual delivery or leaving copies of summons and complaint at
dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion
b. Delivery to agent for service of proces
c. Delivery at office  personal service only
C. Service of Answer
1. Must be served within 21 days of the service of summons and complaint upon D. If D waived
service, must be served within 60 days of the mailing of the waiver.

X. COMPLAINT, ANSWERS AND DEFENSES, FRCP 11 AND 12 MOTIONS

A. Answers and Defenses
1. Allegations in the complaint must be admitted, denied, or partially denied. Statement of lack of
knowledge = denial.
2. Affirmative defenses must be pleaded in the answer and will be waived if not pleaded.
a. Accord and satisfaction j. Illegality
b. Arbitration and award k. Laches
c. Assumption of risk l. License
d. Contributory negligence m. Release and payment
e. Duress n. Res Judicata
f. Estoppel o. Statute of Frauds
g. Failure of consideration p. Statute of Limitations/Prescription
h. Fraud q. Waiver
i. Injury by fellow servant r. Release and Payment
B. Amendment of Pleading
1. Party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving it  otherwise,
will need leave of court and consent of opposing party.
C. FRCP 12(b) Motion to Dismiss
May be asserted at any time Waived unless first raised in answer or pre-answer motion
12(b)(1) Lack of SMJ 12(b)(2) Lack of personal jurisdiction
12(b)(6) Failure to state a claim upon 12(b)(3) Improper venue
which relief may be granted
12(b)(7) Failure to join a party under 12(b)(4) Insufficient process  technical defects in the forms used
FRCP 19 for process or failure of process to be sealed by the clerk
12(b)(5) Insufficient service of process
1. 12(b)(6) motion: two grounds for the defense
 a. Claim not cognizable as a matter of law  all claims must be based upon some actionable
theory
b. Party has failed to allege sufficient facts to support an otherwise cognizable legal claim 
sufficient facts must be alleged to raise a claim that is plausible and establishes an entitlement
to relief.
2. Time limit: within 21 days after service of the complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim upon which
the 12(b) motion is directed  if D waived service, he has 60 days to respond in either the answer or
pre-answer motion.
D. FRCP 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
1. Asserted by either party after the pleadings are closed  party asserts that the complaint or answer
is insufficient.
2. If the court is asked to consider matters outside of the pleadings (on either a 12(b) or 12(c) motion),
the motion should be treated as one for Summary Judgment under Rule 56.
E. FRCP 11 Motion for Attorney or Party Unreasonableness
1. Signature of Attorney
a. Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a person represented by counsel must be signed
by at least one attorney of record  failure to sign will cause the paper to be stricken if not
corrected upon notification of clerk of court.
b. Representation implied by signature
i. To the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the paper filed is not for improper purpose
such as harassment or delay.
ii. Claims and defenses are warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for its
modification/extension/reversal.
iii. Allegations have or are likely to have evidentiary support
2. Sanctions for Rule 11 violations
1. Are not mandatory.
2. Grounds for sanctions:
i. Attorney signs paper for improper purposes
ii. Attorney asserts claims or defenses that are not warranted by law
iii. Attorney makes allegations w/out adequate evidentiary support
3. Before D atty files the rule 11 motion, pl’s attorney must be served with the motion and given 21
days to consider whether to withdraw the complaint. If he withdraws the complaint within 21 days,
the rule 11 motion will not be filed.

XI. DISCOVERY
A. Required Disclosure by Parties
1. Required Initial Disclosures
a. Witnesses (name, address, phone) that are likely to have discoverable material, along with
the subjects of the information that the disclosing party may use to support the claims or
defenses (unless the use is only for impeachment).
b. Copy or description of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things
that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its
claims or defenses (unless the use is only for impeachment).
c. An insurance agreement under which a business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a
possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
judgment.
d. Computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, and the
documents or evidentiary material on which each computation is based, including materials
bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.
2. Penalty for failing to comply with the obligation to make initial disclosures:
 a. Documents and Ws: party will be prohibited from using the evidence at trial (except to
impeach) unless the party can show that non-disclosure was either substantially justified or
harmless
B. Request for Production of Documents
1. Obligation to deliver the documents described in the other side’s request for production of
documents 
a. Party must produce all discoverable requested documents that are in the party’s
possession, custody, or control.
b. Party also has a duty to make a reasonable search of all sources likely to contain the
requested documents.
c. Irrelevant if the party does not want to use the documents at trial.
d. If additional documents are later found, there is a continuing duty to disclose.
2. Discoverable material defined: parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claims or defenses  information need not be admissible at trial
as long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3. Excluded from discovery: materials prepared by the other party in anticipation of litigation.
C. FRCP 26(f) Discovery Conference
1. Party is prohibited from seeking discovery from any source before the Rule 26(f) conference occurs.
D. Limitations on Discovery
1. Party must obtain leave of court to issue more than 25 interrogatories if the parties have not
stipulated a larger number.
2. Party must obtain leave of court to take more than 10 depositions, unless the parties have stipulated
to a larger number.
3. There is no limit under FRCP 30 for the number of requests for admission a party can make.

XII. SUMMARY JUDGMENT, JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, FINAL JUDGMENT

A. FRCP 56 Motion for Summary Judgment
1. Court shall grant SJ if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
a. Motion must identify each claim or defense or the part of each claim or defense on which
summary judgment is sought.
2. Timing: party may file motion for SJ until 30 days after the close of all discovery.
3. Procedure for asserting that a fact can or cannot be disputed:
a. Party may cite to material in the record that provides evidence of the presence of absence of
a factual dispute.
b. Affidavits for motion for SJ must:
i. Be made based on personal knowledge,
ii. Set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and
iii. Show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
4. Court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and cannot weigh the
conflicting evidence  this is a job for the trier of fact.
B. FRCP 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
1. Can be made only during trial  any time after a party has been fully heard on an issue and before
the case is submitted to the jury.
2. Standard: if court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis
for the nonmovant party on that issue, then the court may take these two steps:
a. Resolve the issue against the party; and
b. Grant the motion for JML against the party on a claim or defense.
3. If court refrains from granting motion, then it may be renewed  may be removed w/in 28 days of
judgment and may include a request for a new trial under FRCP 59. In ruling on the renewed motion,
the court may:
a. Deny the motion and allow judgment on the verdict
 b. Order a new trial
c. Direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the movant.
4. Judge is not allowed to assess the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence
5. Must make the motion timely during trial or else you cannot renew it after trial.
C. FRCP 54 Entry of Final Judgment
1. Judicial order that does not determine the merits of all of the claims or dismiss all of the parties is
not a final judgment and is not appealable unless the trial judge
a. Makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and
b. Makes an express direction for the entry of judgment.
2. In this case, the judgment will be final and appealable.
D. Post-Trial Motions and Appeals
1. FRCP 59 Motion for a New Trial
a. Court should grant if there is a procedural error or if the verdict is against the clear weight
of the evidence.
b. Must be filed no later than 28 days after judgment is entered.
2. Motion to alter or amend a judgment: may be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment
3. FRCP 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment
a. Court may grant relief, upon motion, from a final judgment or order for the following
reasons:
i. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect
ii. Newly discovered evidence  could not have been found w/ due diligence in time to
move for a new trial
iii. Fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party
iv. Judgment is void
v. Judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged
vi. Any other justifiable reason
4. Appeals from Final Judgment
a. FRCP 62 Motion for Stay of Judgment
i. Automatic stay for 14 days after judgment is entered
ii. Losing party can then file a motion for a stay while judge considers the post-trial
motions
b. FRAP 8: D can file a motion for supercedious bond and a stay of execution of the judgment.
If granted, the stay will prevent pl. from collecting or enforcing the judgment during the
appeal.
c. Notice of appeal must be filed in the federal district court within 30 days of the entry of
judgment.