GRABLE TEST FQJ: Substance: How Substantive is the Federal Issue? Is it contested? Legislative Intent: Did the legislature intend to establish a private cause of action? Federalism: Federalism concerns: will this shift a ton of cases from state to federal court? Federal Interest State Interest 1. Uniformity 1. Uniformity Uniform national rule and enforcement. Unnecessary for national uniformity Once decided, the decision will have an One-off case: will decide this case and no effect across state lines. others. 2. Fact v. Law Fact v. Law This is a matter of pure law to be or mix of law and fact. determined—will not be necessary to constantly re-decide it based on factual circumstances. 3. Division of Labor (Federalism) 3. Division of Labor Only federalize a low volume of State law adopts federal standard. cases. Don’t want to take jurisdiction away from Efficiency and division of labor. states. Would allow a landslide of future cases (Moore, American Well Works) 4. Relative Weight of 4. Relative Weight Antecedent federal question: on State issue is overwhelmingly dominant constitutionality of decision of federal (Merrell Dow). issue If state judge will be better suited to deal Substantial of federal interest with entire care or just as good (Empire) (Grable, Smith, Bivens) II. Diversity Jurisdiction As opposed to FQJ: not based on the substantive nature of what’s being litigated, but rather on the parties involved. Accounts for about 25% of the federal court docket. Elitism issues: corporate bar an elite bench of judges. Plaintiffs’ bar wants choices. Developed in 1850 Plaintiffs can invoke diversity jurisdiction in own home state, but defendants can’t remove if suit brought in their home state. General Rules: Maximum Diversity (no overlap between citizenship on either side of the versus). Amount in controversy (based on plaintiffs’ good faith belief) must exceed $75,000. To justify dismissal, it must appear to a legal certainty that it won’t meet jurisdictional amount (St. Paul Mercury) Plaintiffs can invoke diversity in their home state, but defendants can’t remove to federal court even if there’s diversity if the suit was brought in their home state (no Bias—but there’s a bias inconsistency). Test for citizenship on the date that the complaint is filed Citizenship:
GRABLE TEST FQJ: Substance: How Substantive is the Federal Issue? Is it contested? Legislative Intent: Did the legislature intend to establish a private cause of action? Federalism: Federalism concerns: will this shift a ton of cases from state to federal court? Federal Interest State Interest 1. Uniformity Uniform national rule and enforcement. Once decided, the decision will have an effect across state lines. 1. Uniformity Unnecessary for national uniformity One-off case: will decide this case and no others. 2. Fact v. Law This is a matter of pure law to be determined—will not be necessary to constantly re-decide it based on factual circumstances. Fact v. Law or mix of law and fact. 3. Division of Labor (Federalism) Only federalize a low volume of cases. Efficiency and division of labor. 3. Division of Labor State law adopts federal standard. Don’t want to take jurisdiction away from states. Would allow a landslide of future cases (Moore, American Well Works) 4. Relative Weight of Antecedent federal question: on constitutionality of decision of federal issue Substantial of federal interest (Grable, Smith, Bivens) 4. Relative Weight State issue is overwhelmingly dominant (Merrell Dow). If state judge will be better suited to deal with entire care or just as good (Empire) II. Diversity Jurisdiction As opposed to FQJ: not based on the substantive nature of what’s being litigated, but rather on the parties involved. Accounts for about 25% of the federal court docket. Elitism issues: corporate bar an elite bench of judges. Plaintiffs’ bar wants choices. Developed in 1850 Plaintiffs can invoke diversity jurisdiction in own home state, but defendants can’t remove if suit brought in their home state. General Rules: Maximum Diversity (no overlap between citizenship on either side of the versus). Amount in controversy (based on plaintiffs’ good faith belief) must exceed $75,000. To justify dismissal, it must appear to a legal certainty that it won’t meet jurisdictional amount (St. Paul Mercury) Plaintiffs can invoke diversity in their home state, but defendants can’t remove to federal court even if there’s diversity if the suit was brought in their home state (no Bias—but there’s a bias inconsistency). Test for citizenship on the date that the complaint is filed Citizenship:
CivPro_Neuborne_2015.docx