subject matter jurisdiction

Well-pleaded complaint rule

WPC Rule

• A case arises under the Const/laws/treaties of the US under the meaning of 1331 ONLY if a federal question appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint
• 2 things to answer
• Does federal law supply an element of the claim? MUST BE YES
• IS said claim asserted in the complaint?
• Can't be based on a federal claim to a claim created by state law OR a counterclaim based on federal law (Holmes Group).
• Defendant's preemptive declaratory judgments do not satisfy (only difference between this and an affirmative defense is the timing with respect to the plaintiff's suit)

Hybrid claims

• What happens if federal law is incorporated into a state-created cause of action?
• a) state has created the cause of action, and
• b) liability under state law is determined by applying a federal rule of decision (ie federal law)
• DISTINGUISH FROM LEGISLATIVE PLAGIARISM
• We're not focused on the wording; we're focused on the key activators
• Satisfy WPC Rule, but don't assume you have FQJ

• For exam: just be able to identify a hybrid claim, distinguish it from legislative plagiarism, and recognize that if you're ever faced with a hybrid claim, there's further analysis to be done

Removal

Removal

§ 1441 -> defendant can remove any claim that satisfies the WPC rule (heavily reliant on plaintiff power)

(c) -> provides exception for suits that have claims that satisfy the WPC rule but some that don't -> you can bring the whole suit up and the court will sever the parts that don't work for them and will kick them back to state court yasss

Statutory authority

All require AICR and diversity

• 1332(a)
• 1332(d)
• 1335
• 1369

Statutory authority

• 1369

Diversity requirement

Diversity

requirement

• Mas v. Perry
• Jurisdiction over Mr. Mas [France] v. Perry [La.] under 1332(a)(2)
• b) Jurisdiction over Mrs. Mas [Miss.] v. Perry [La.] under 1332(a)(1)
• Alternatively, said the lawsuit as a whole could be analyzed under 1332(a)(3) as well
• COMPLETE DIVERSITY -> diversity across the v.
• Judicial interpretation of 1332(a)(1) -> then clarified statutorily in 1332(a)(3)
• Special rules for determining citizenship in 1332(c)

Amount in controversy requirement

AICR

• Aggregation rules 1332(a)
• Statute has been read to require that the claim of each π against each ∆ has to satisfy the AIC requirements
• A (π) and B (π) each sue C (∆) for $40k each -> FAIL
• CLAIM-BASED
• Claims don't have to be related
• "I sue you and have 2 claims against you, each is $40k, then it satisfies the aggregation rule"

28 US Code §1367

§ 1367

• 1367(a) giveth... (power prong)
• and 1367(b) taketh away (the "except" clause)
• Bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against defendants joined under…
• Rule 14 = defending party becoming a 3rd party plaintiff and bringing another defendant & plaintiff can then assert claim against that 3rd party
• Rule 19 = must be joined cause idk
• Rule 20 = plaintiffs or defendants joining cause same drama
• Rule 24 = intervention shite idk
• OR by plaintiffs joined under…
• Rule 19
• OR seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under …
• Rule 24
• WHEN EXERCISING SJ would be INCONSISTENT with 1332
• only applies to claims asserted by plaintiffs and persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs.
• so if we’re not talking about the π, or πs, § 1367(b) is irrelevant, there’s supp j under 1367(a)
• But… rule 20 gap
• 1367(b) doesn’t apply when you only have 1 defendant
• 1367(c) -> discretion prong

SCA vs WCA -> Allapattah

SCA vs WCA and Allapattah

• Single Complaint Approach v. Whole Complaint Approach
• SCA -> only a single claim needs to satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction
• WCA -> they all do
• Literally doesn't matter because Allapattah established that we use SCA with AICR but complete diversity in every respect (WCA)
• If one claim exceeds $75k within the suit, that’s enough

Owen Equipment and Erection Co. v. Kroger

Kroger

• SJ through the DJ route
• Context rationale
• Impleader: the facts of this case
• Cross-claim: π sues ∆1 and ∆2, ∆1 can bring a cross claim against ∆2 c)
• Counterclaim: π sues ∆1, then ∆1 sues CC against the π and a second CC ∆2 d)
• SCOTUS also seems to suggest when a party is hailed into federal court against their will

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs

Gibbs

• Supplemental jurisdiction via FQJ route
• Requirements
• 1 independent basis
• Substance sufficient on the claim (don't want plaintiffs using frivolous claims to get to federal court)
• State and federal claim derive from common nucleus of operative fact
• LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP
• do fairness, considerations of convenience, and judicial economy indicate claims should be tried together? OR
• transaction of occrurrence test
• Discretion power -> you CAN exercise jurisdiction here, but highest court decides not to