JURISDICTION (SUBJECT MATTER ((3) REMOVAL
S.1441 (a) (b) removal…
(2) FEDERAL QUESTION-
Art III, S.2, Cl.1**28 USC S 1331
- original juris arising under the Constitution, laws/treaties of US**
A. WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULEMOTTLEY RULE, Grable & Sons
- "federal law creates cause of action"
- whether claim "arises under" federal law
- look only at claim
S.1441 (a) (b) removal generally
S.1446 (a) (b) (c) procedures
S.1447 - Remand, w/in 30 days
A. FORUM STATE DF - CAN'T REMOVE UNDER DIVERSITY RULE
s 1441 (b)(2) - removable under S 1331(a) only if no DF from forum state
B. TIME FRAME FOR REMOVAL
S.1446 (b) - 30 days from reciept of pleadings
if not = WAIVED
s.1446 (b)(2)(B) - 30 days from AMENDMENT, got basis for fed juris
C. TIME FRAME FOR DIVERSITY REMOVAL
S.1446(c)(1) - one year from initial filing, unless BAD FAITH
D. REMAND FOR IMPROPER REMOVAL
S. 1447 (c) - 30 days for PF to remand, not if JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT! (anytime can)
- after Intl Shoe,depends on "sufficient contacts with forum"
C. LONG ARM STATUTES
- if state court had juris to hear the Df's case (where his domicile), then Fed court can hear it too
- depends on that state, usually up to full extent of Fed Consti allows
A. IN PERSONAM
(2) GENERAL JURISDICTION
(a) no contact, but at home;
(b) all claims anywhere
(c) harder to prove
(1) SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
"no contact in forum state, no jurisdiction"!
(1) minimum contacts within forum state;
(2) claims arising from those contacts
(3) doesnt offend principle of justice
McGee v Intl Life Insurance ( insurance)
- suit based on contract which had substantial connection with that state (contacts sent to California,premiums paid there, insured resident)
A state court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state company if the company has substantial connections with the state.
++NO CONTACT, NO JURIS,EVEN IF REASONABLE
- Robinsons sued WW ifor product liability in OKLAHOMA (accident & fire place), no personal juris as WW (NY) had no ties to forum state whatsoever,
- contacts v reasonableness
(i) must have had contacts in forum state;
(iii) arose out of those contacts;
Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state.
Burger King v Rudzewicz
- negotiated & finalised deal with Florida, knowledge
- "PURPOSEFULLY DIRECTED ACTIVITIES + HARM ARISING OUT OF/RELATED TO ACTIVITIES"
- Contracts v Contacts
- foreign business’s should not be made aware that its products will reach a forum state within the United States in the stream of commerce, does not satisfy the minimum contacts needed for personal jurisdiction.
- Under the Due Process Clause, the fact that it is foreseeable that a product will enter a state though the stream of commerce does not create personal jurisdiction over the distributor and retailer.
- contacts not sufficient
"Arising out of"
(ii) principal place of biz
(a) DF's residence =DOMICILE! (apply same Gordon v Steele test)
- if multiple DFs, there must be COMMON resident state. if none = move to (b) below
- REMEMBER: any judicial district of a state of the Df's resident subjects him to personal juris of that state, but it may not be the PROPER DISTRICT COURT. must look at where DF resides!
(b) Substantial part of events/omissions
UFFNER v LA REUNION
- place where important part of the sequence of events occurred, giving rise to case
- point of dispute + Df's role in the matter
fed court can hear state law claim, as long as common nucleus of operative facts (supplemental jurisdiction) GIBBS case - supplemented by Supplement Jurisdiction Statute