CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 4 Weeks 3 and 4 I Unit B continued a Federal question jurisdiction i Osborn v Bank of United States if there is a small amount of federal law in the case the Constitution would allow jurisdiction ii Mottley others the well pleaded complaint rule issue must arise under federal constitutional or treaty Congress has limited federal jurisdiction question within the limit of what the Constitution allows iii The Holmes Test a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action But this test is insufficient to decide when the claim arises under state law but depends on federal laws as well or vice versa iv Can t piggyback state claims onto federal law claims but can if you also have diversity jurisdiction v Gunn v Minton 133 S Ct 1059 1 Trial one Gunn represents Minton in a patent dispute Gunn failed to bring up an exception to one of the defendant s defenses and Minton lost Trial two Minton sues Gunn for malpractice in Texas state court and loses leading to the present appeal 2 Minton appeals on the grounds that because the malpractice was over patent law and successful malpractice suit requires a showing that it is more likely he would ve won his patent case if the attorney was competent the state court didn t have jurisdiction because patent law is exclusive to federal courts Asks for the adjudication against him to be dismissed vacated so that he can start over in federal district court 3 Doesn t happen Intermediate appeal said yes you can have federal jurisdiction Defendant s appeal to Texas Supreme Court results in a no which was appealed by Minton resulting in a final no from SCOTUS The claim does not arise under patent laws even if it involves a question of patent law is it more likely than not that Minton would ve won if his attorney had raised the exception 4 Are there circumstances where this would be allowed Grable Does the state law claim necessarily 1 raise a stated federal issue 2 actually disputed and substantial which 3 a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities a There is a stated federal issue here patent law would the trial have been successful if the attorney was competent b It is disputed and substantial his claim depends on it But the requirement here is substantial to federal law This really won t have an effect on federal law will have no precedential value c The federal forum may not entertain it it depends on state attorney regulation laws the federal court doesn t really care about that 5 This is really an add on to the Holmes test 6 What is the justification for this flexible test Making sure that when a federal right is actually in question it is a federal court that decides it so that it doesn t mess up the uniformity of federal court or the rights of the government vi Federal question jurisdiction based on a counterclaim 1 A counterclaim on a federal issue is not grounds to grant federal subject matter jurisdiction 2 You look at the plaintiff s complaint not the defendants But what if you are in a state court with a compulsory counterclaim law Too bad 3 Results in races to the courthouse first one there is the plaintiff vii Assessing federal jurisdiction in declaratory judgment actions 1 28 USC 2201 If there is an actual controversy within its jurisdiction the court may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration whether or not further relief is or could be sought Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of decree and shall be reviewable as such Sort of an injunction or preliminary ruling 2 Does not expand jurisdiction Basically to determine who has jurisdiction use your imagination to figure out what the trial would ve been Who is the natural plaintiff viii Can Congress pass laws restricting jurisdiction based on federal question Constitutional arguments against it content regulation and telling courts how they should decide things ix Note due process clause 14th amendment extends every part of the bill of rights except for number 7 trial by jury to the states b Removal jurisdiction i 28 8SC 1441 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 ii Usually a strategic move a defendant is sued in state court and if allowed removes to federal court to gain some strategic advantage Circumstances in which defendant can remove are limited easier to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and that is typically the first route Also works where there is concurrent jurisdiction iii Limitation 1 A defendant sued in state court where they are a resident cannot remove on the basis of diversity jurisdiction 2 A defendant sued by an out of state court removal iv 28 USC 1446 governs the procedure for removing a case to federal court Most importantly defendant has 30 days from service of initial complaint to file for removal v 28 USC 1448 if it really belongs in state the federal court must remand it back down to state in 30 days vi Hohlbein v Heritage Mutual Insurance Co II 1 A group of plaintiff s join their claims against the WI based insurance co in federal court No reason they shouldn t be in federal court 2 Defendant wants to sever the cases arguing that the joinder is improper This is a memorandum and order on that decision 3 Note no one is bound by this decision other than the parties to the lawsuit it has not precedential value although depending on the rules of the jurisdiction it may have persuasive value 4 Defendant s arguments none of the plaintiff s cases arise from the same occurrence 5 rather from similar occurrences As required under rule Further this will prejudice the jury and introduce irrelevant evidence none of the plaintiff s facts are relevant to the others 6 Ordered plaintiffs won t be severed yet but judge reserves the right to separate them later The majority of cases don t make it to trial anyways There is discretion on this issue so it isn t strongly appealable Would require a large abuse of discretion to be overturned which appeals courts don t find often 7 Is it the same transaction or occurrence Plaintiffs argue that the misrepresentations made by the company to them were part of a pattern of behavior The