🪜Civil Procedure Unit 3 – Subject Matter Jurisdiction

What's Subject Matter Jurisdiction?

• Refers to a court's power to hear and decide a particular type of case
• Determines whether a court has the authority to adjudicate a specific legal matter
• Ensures that cases are heard in the appropriate court system (federal or state)
• Limits the types of cases that can be brought before a specific court
• Helps maintain the separation of powers between federal and state courts
• Parties cannot waive or consent to subject matter jurisdiction
  • The court must have proper jurisdiction to hear the case
• Courts have an independent obligation to ensure they have subject matter jurisdiction

Types of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

• Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction
  • Can only hear cases specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes
• Two main types of subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts
  • Federal question jurisdiction
  • Diversity jurisdiction
• State courts have general subject matter jurisdiction
  • Can hear a wide variety of cases, including those involving state law
• Specialized courts may have subject matter jurisdiction over specific types of cases
  • Bankruptcy courts, tax courts, and patent courts
• Concurrent jurisdiction exists when both federal and state courts can hear a case

Federal Question Jurisdiction

• Arises when a case involves a federal law, treaty, or the U.S. Constitution
• Allows federal courts to hear cases that raise substantial federal issues
• Plaintiff's complaint must demonstrate that the case arises under federal law
  • Well-pleaded complaint rule requires the federal question to be apparent on the face of the complaint
• Federal jurisdiction exists even if state law claims are also present in the case
• Examples of federal question cases
  • Constitutional violations, copyright infringement, and federal tax disputes
• 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over federal question cases

Diversity Jurisdiction

• Allows federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states
• Requires complete diversity of citizenship
  • No plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant
• Amount in controversy must exceed $75,000
  • Calculated based on the value of the relief sought by the plaintiff
• Citizenship is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed
  • For individuals, citizenship is based on domicile (permanent residence)
  • For corporations, citizenship is based on the state of incorporation and principal place of business
• Prevents bias against out-of-state litigants in state courts
• 28 U.S.C. § 1332 grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over diversity cases

Supplemental Jurisdiction

• Allows federal courts to hear state law claims related to a federal claim
• Codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367
• Requires that the state and federal claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact
  • Claims must be so closely related that they form part of the same case or controversy
• Promotes judicial efficiency by allowing related claims to be heard in a single proceeding
• Federal courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances
  • When state law claims predominate or raise novel or complex issues of state law
• Supplemental jurisdiction applies to claims by or against additional parties
  • Joinder of parties must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 or 20

Removal and Remand

• Removal allows defendants to transfer a case from state court to federal court
  • Case must satisfy the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction
  • Defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days of receiving the initial pleading
• Plaintiff can challenge removal by filing a motion to remand
  • Argues that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that removal was procedurally defective
• If the federal court determines it lacks jurisdiction, the case is remanded to state court
• Remand orders are generally not appealable
  • Except in civil rights cases removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443
• Fraudulent joinder occurs when a plaintiff names a non-diverse defendant solely to defeat removal
  • Federal court may disregard the fraudulently joined party and retain jurisdiction

Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction

• Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time during the litigation
  • By the parties or by the court sua sponte (on its own)
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
  • Can be filed before filing an answer or responsive pleading
• Court may hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes related to jurisdiction
• If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the court must dismiss the case
  • Dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to refile in an appropriate court
• Parties cannot waive challenges to subject matter jurisdiction by failing to raise them earlier in the litigation

Key Cases and Examples

• Marbury v. Madison (1803)
  • Established the principle of judicial review and the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution
• Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908)
  • Established the well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction
• Strawbridge v. Curtiss (1806)
  • Established the complete diversity requirement for diversity jurisdiction
• United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)
  • Articulated the "common nucleus of operative fact" test for supplemental jurisdiction
• Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis (1996)
  • Held that a federal court can cure a jurisdictional defect in removal by dismissing a non-diverse party
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (2005)
  • Clarified the application of supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases with multiple plaintiffs