Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

JURISDICTION is a term that describes a court's power over the type…

- - - - 28 U.S. Code §1441. REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS - any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
        
        basically, if a case is filed by P in state court + the case is under concurrent jurisdiction, the D can file to REMOVE the case to federal court
        
        28 U.S. Code §1441(b)(2). IN STATE DEFENDANT RULE -if OGJ based on diversity, it cannot be removed if P files in D's state court
        
        all Ds must consent to removal, even if they were served earlier and didn't seek removal earlier, they can still consent if later served D moves for removal
        
        28 U.S. Code §1446. PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS
        
        Ds have 30 days after receipt of the initial pleading, service of summons, or whenever notice of it becoming removable arrives (for example, if a nondiverse party is dismissed, leaving complete diversity of citizenship) whichever is sooner.
        
        The defendant seeking removal must file a notice of removal in the federal court, indicating the grounds for removal and including all process, pleadings, and orders in the case.
        
        The defendant must then provide notice to the plaintiff and must file the notice of removal with the state court.
        
        Once this is accomplished, the case is automatically removed to federal court, and the state court may not proceed further unless the case is remanded , i.e., sent back to state court
        
        28 U.S. Code § 1447. PROCESS AFTER REMOVAL GENERALLY. - A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).
        
        Remand for lack of SMJ can occur at any point
  - - - THE WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE - a case arises under federal law only if a federal question appears on the face of the P's properly pleaded complaint. So the right/immunity conferred by a federal law must be a basic element of the P's complaint.
        A case does NOT arise under federal law if:
        
        the D introduces the federal issue
        
        the P's complaint merely anticipates a defense based on federal law
        
        if it only requires the interpretation of a federal law
    - - there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties
        
        citizenship is determined as of the time when the case is filed
        
        INDIVIDUALS
        
        lawful resident aliens who are domiciled in a state = the same as a citizen domiciled in that state
        
        this includes foreign citizens
        
        Domicile Rule - principal home and intent to remain indefinitely
        
        CORPORTATIONS
        
        citizen of every state and foreign country where it is incorporated
        
        where its principal place of business (the nerve center test, the headquarters, where decisions are made)
        
        UNINCORPORATED
        
        determined by the citizenship of each member (can be a citizen of multiple states and countries)
      - the claim satisfies the statutory
        amount-in-controversy requirement
        >$75K
        
        excluding costs and interest
        
        including compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief
- - - - Domicile Rule - principal home and intent to remain indefinitely
    - - does not apply when the D has been brought into the state through fraud, force, or other reasons involving bad faith
    - - failure to challenge PJ can waive your right to do so later
      - forum-selection clauses in contracts can be consent
      - making a general appearance (not special appearance) in the forum court means voluntarily submitting yourself to a forum state's jurisdiction
  - - - To determine if personal jurisdiction aligns, two factors must be balanced in determining personal jurisdiction.
        
        each defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the state
        
        defendants purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of the state
        
        defendants could have reasonably anticipated being hauled into court in the state
        
        in STREAM OF COMMERCE cases, consider if Ds had
        
        knowledge that their products would end up in the state
        
        AND control over the movement of their products in the forum state
        
        Contacts Sufficient for General Jurisdiction If a defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, then the state will have general jurisdiction over the defendant in any case, regardless of where the cause of action arose. In other words, general jurisdiction exists if the defendant can fairly be said to be at home in the forum state. An individual is at home in the state where the individual is domiciled, while a corporation is at home in the state where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.
        
        authorizing PJ over nonresident defendants does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
        
        To determine if authorizing personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, we must consider five factors to determine how reasonable it is that the defendant will be brought into court in Maryland. These five reasonableness factors include:
        
        (1) the burden on the defendant,
        
        (2) the plaintiff’s interest in having litigation occur in Maryland,
        
        (3) the Maryland’s interest in having litigation occur in their state,
        
        (4) judicially efficiency, and
        
        (5) shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
- - - - the moving party bears the burden of establishing that transfer is proper & make must make two showings to justify transfer
        
        the D must establish that the P originally could have brought the action in the proposed transferee district.
        
        the D must demonstrate that considerations of convenience and the interest of justice weigh in favor of transfer to that district. Here, the court weighs a number of case-specific private and public-interest factors.
        
        The PRIVATE-interest considerations include:
        
        the P' choice of forum and its importance to the P (weighs a lot of residents);
        
        the defendant’s choice of forum;
        
        whether the claim arose elsewhere (where is the evidence and witnesses?;
        
        the convenience of the parties;
        
        The PUBLIC-interest considerations include:
        
        (1) the transferee’s familiarity with the governing laws;
        
        (2) the congestion of the calendars of the courts; and
        
        (3) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home.
      - FORUM NON CONVENIENS
        Even though no statute authorizes a federal court to dismiss a case that was filed in a proper venue, the federal courts (and most state courts) have retained their common law authority to grant such dismissals