FALL 2018
*INTRODUCTION
TO UNITED STATES LAW--Lecture
Topic 5: What Federal Courts
Do/Jurisdiction
--Last Modified:
Tuesday, 14-Aug-2018 09:29:29 EDT
Lecture 5: What the
Federal Courts Do/Jurisdiction
Introduction
The United States Courts compile a
variety of statistics each year
relating to the judicial caseload of the
federal court system. Examining these
caseload statistics gives a preliminary
indication of
what the U.S. District Courts and the
U.S. Courts of Appeal do.
[Note that you will see slightly
different numbers presented in
various of the reported federal
statistics because different reports
use different end dates. Some reports
are for periods ended March 31
as required by a federal statute whereas
other reports are for
periods ending September 30 to coincide
with the end of the fiscal
year of the federal government. Further,
some reports have other
period end dates. Do not worry about
these differences for purposes
of the lecture. We are most interested
in looking at relative
magnitudes of different kinds of cases,
as well as multi-year trends
and not precise numbers for any given
year. Links are provided to
the various government reports for the
details.]
Looking at the statistics for the U.S.
District Courts, we find
that in 2015 plaintiffs filed 279,036
civil complaints and
prosecutors filed 80,069 criminal
complaints against defendants.
Additionally, 860,182 cases commenced in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. You may
recall from Lecture 3 that the U.S.
Bankruptcy Courts operate
in each judicial district under the
supervision of the U.S. District
Court in that district. In 2015,
litigants filed 52,698 new appeals
in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. See United
States
Courts, Judicial Caseload
Indicators-Judicial Business 2015.
Of the federal court case filings in
recent years, approximately
70% are bankruptcy cases, 20% are civil
cases and 10% are criminal
cases. The number, and thus percentage,
of bankruptcy cases
fluctuates with the state of the
economy. Bankruptcy filings peaked
following the financial market crash in
2008 to almost 1.5 million
filings a year in 2011; and now,
following the stabilization of the
economy, have declined significantly.
Comparison to State Courts: By
way of comparison, the
various state courts handle vastly more
cases than the federal
courts. As a very rough guide, across
recent years, for every one
federal case filed there will be
approximately 30 cases filed in
state courts in any given year. State
court statistics are not
compiled on a systematic nationwide
basis and, thus, data is harder
to locate. However, a 2009 study gave an
insight into the nationwide
picture. Examining
the
Work of State Courts: An Analysis of
2009 State Court Caseloads. To
keep the vast state court numbers in
perspective, you will see
from the 2009 analysis of state court
caseloads that a majority of
the state court cases by number are for
traffic violations and other
relatively minor matters. Nevertheless,
the administrative burden is
significant. Backlogs and delays plague
the system as there are only
approximately 1,700 federal judges and
approximately 30,000 state
judges nationwide to handle this
workload.
The cases in the federal system tend to
be of greater national
importance than cases in the state court
system, particularly cases
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (for
example, resolution of the
issue of same-sex marriage) or they
involved more significant
financial disputes. However, certain
state court proceedings gain
national attention when they involve
famous persons (such as the
trial of OJ Simpson) or raise issues of
national concern (such as the
shooting of an unarmed
African-American--Trayvon Martin--by
George
Zimmerman) or have a mystery or
sensational aspect that appeal to a
national audience (such as the trial of
Casey Anthony for the murder
of her young daughter).
As should be clear from the
presentation of the federal
statistics, the three major types of
cases heard in the federal court
system are civil cases, criminal cases
and bankruptcy cases, which
are discussed below.
Three Major Types of Federal Cases
Consider the below description of each
type of case prepared by
the Federal Judicial Center [into which
additional comments have been
inserted between brackets]:
[Start Federal Judicial Center excerpt]
Civil
Case
A
civil case begins when a person or
entity (such as a corporation or
the government), called the
plaintiff, claims that another
person or
entity, called the defendant, has
failed to carry out a legal duty
owed to the plaintiff. Both the
plaintiff and the defendant are also
referred to as parties or litigants.
The plaintiff may ask the court
to tell the defendant to fulfill the
duty, or make compensation for
the harm done, or both. Legal duties
include respecting rights
established under the Constitution
or under federal or state law.
Civil
suits
are brought in both state and
federal courts. An example of a
civil case in a state court would be
if a citizen (including a
corporation) sued another citizen
for not living up to a contract.
For
example, if a lumberyard enters a
contract to sell a specific amount
of wood to a carpenter for an
agreed-upon price and then fails to
deliver the wood, forcing the
carpenter to buy it elsewhere at a
higher price, the carpenter might
sue the lumberyard in state court
to pay the extra costs incurred
because of the lumberyard's failure
to deliver; these costs are called
damages. If these parties were
from different states, however, then
that suit could be brought in
federal court under diversity
jurisdiction if the amount in
question
exceeded the minimum required by
statute ($75,000). [Note: diversity
jurisdiction will be explained in
more detail below.]
Individuals,
corporations,
and the federal government can also
bring civil suits
in federal court claiming violations
of federal statutes or
constitutional rights. For example,
the federal government can sue a
hospital for overbilling Medicare
and Medicaid, a violation of a
federal statute. An individual could
sue a local police department
for violation of his or her
constitutional rights--for example,
the
right to assemble peacefully.
[In civil
cases, the plaintiff often is a
private party (rather than a state
government or the federal
government, the plaintiff must prove its
case by satisfying a "civil"
burden of proof which typically requires
that it prove the defendant
is liable by a preponderance of the
evidence (though sometimes the
higher burden of clear and convincing
evidence is required) and the
purpose of the lawsuit typically is to
obtain financial compensation
for injuries suffered.]
Criminal
Case
A
person accused of a crime is
generally charged in a formal
accusation
called an indictment (for felonies
or serious crimes) or information
(for misdemeanors). The government,
on behalf of the people of the
United States, prosecutes the case
through the United States
Attorney's Office if the person is
charged with a federal crime. A
state's attorney's office prosecutes
state crimes.
It
is not the victim's responsibility
to bring a criminal case. In a
kidnapping case, for instance, the
government would prosecute the
kidnapper; the victim would not be a
party to the action.
In
some criminal cases, there may not
be a specific victim. For example,
state governments arrest and
prosecute people accused of
violating
laws against driving while
intoxicated because society regards
that
as a serious offense that can result
in harm to others.
When
a
court determines that an individual
committed a crime, that person
will receive a sentence. The
sentence may be a monetary penalty
(a
fine and/or restitution to the
victim), imprisonment, or
supervision
in the community (by a court
employee called a U.S. probation
officer
if a federal crime), or some
combination of these three things.
[In a criminal
case, the "plaintiff"
is the state or federal government often
referred to as the
"prosecution." The prosecution must
satisfy a criminal burden of
proof by proving that the defendant is
guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, and the purposes of the
prosecution are primarily driven by a
desire to protect the public, and to
punish or rehabilitate those
convicted (through incarceration or
fines), and sometimes to provide
restitution to a victim through a
restitution order.]
What
is
a bankruptcy case?
Bankruptcy
generally
provides one of two options:
liquidation or reorganization.
Liquidation means selling off a
debtor's assets to raise cash for
creditors. If the debtor is an
individual, the debtor is allowed to
keep some property and his or her
debts are discharged, which means
the debtor is excused from paying
more than the amount raised by the
liquidation. If the debtor is a
business, it no longer exists after
liquidation. In some bankruptcy
cases, debtors have the option of
reorganizing rather than
liquidating. Reorganization involves
obtaining court approval of a plan
that includes provisions for
repayment over time of all or a
percentage of the debts owed
creditors. In a reorganization
involving a business, the debtor
business gets to keep its assets and
continue to operate. Its debts
are restructured so that it can pay
a reduced amount over a longer
period of time, which usually gives
creditors more than they would
get in a liquidation. Individual
debtors may also "reorganize"
through bankruptcy by obtaining
court approval of a plan to pay part
or all of the debts owed by making
scheduled payments to creditors
through a trustee for a period of
time. This allows the debtor to
keep assets and, in some instances,
avoid foreclosure proceedings on
the family home.
[End
Federal Judicial Center
excerpt.]
Different Types of Civil Cases in
the Federal System
Another set of federal statistics gives
information on the nature
of the different types of civil cases
that are heard by the federal
courts. These summary statistics break
down the major types of
federal civil cases by number of cases
filed into four categories:
federal question cases (150,157);
diversity of citizenship cases
(87,772); U.S. Defendant cases (37,349);
and, U.S. Plaintiff cases
(6,325). United
States
Courts, Federal Judicial Caseload
Statistics.
These four categories correspond to the
types of federal subject
matter jurisdiction which support the
most numbers of civil cases
(outside the context of bankruptcy
cases). What federal courts do is
limited by the subject matter
jurisdiction which has been granted to
the federal courts by statute. [The
Federal Judicial Center provides a
summary of the different types of
federal subject matter jurisdiction here.
You should read that summary, paying
particular attention to the
links that describe federal
question
jurisdiction, diversity
jurisdiction and civil,
U.S.
as a party.] The federal
courts are often referred
to as courts of limited subject
matter jurisdiction because
the federal courts do not have the power
to adjudicate just any type
of general dispute. Rather, there power
to adjudicate a dispute is
limited by the enumerated grounds for
assertion of subject matter
jurisdiction. In contrast, the trial
courts in state court typically
are courts of general jurisdiction--which
means they have the
power to hear any kind of case. (Though,
you should know that in
state court systems certain types of
disputes are heard by courts of
limited jurisdiction--for example,
contract disputes over small sums
of money often are heard by "small
claims" courts.)
The subject matter jurisdiction of the
federal courts is set forth
in Title 28 of the United States Code,
in Part IV. [As
an exercise, follow the link on the
"Helpful Links" page for the
United States Code to find this part
of the law. Sections
1330-1369 deal specifically with the
jurisdiction of the federal
district courts.]
It is essential to understand that
subject matter jurisdiction is
about the power to hear a
particular type of case. If
subject matter jurisdiction does not
exist, the court is literally
powerless to adjudicate the dispute.
This is why a court may, on its
own motion, raise the issue of subject
matter jurisdiction at any
time in the case and, if the court
decides that it does not have
subject matter jurisdiction it must
dismiss the case. A corollary of
subject matter jurisdiction being about
power is that the parties
themselves are unable to waive subject
matter jurisdiction. If a
court does not have it, the case must be
dismissed even if the
parties all consent to the case being
heard by the court. Of course,
a defendant may make a motion to dismiss
a case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Personal jurisdiction distinguished
from subject matter
jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction must be
distinguished from personal
jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is
about the power of a court to
compel a defendant to appear before it.
You should recall from
Lecture 1 the brief introduction to
so-called "long-arm"
statutes. A long-arm statute is a
statute that allows a plaintiff in
a court in state A to compel a defendant
in state B to appear and
answer a complaint filed in a court in
state A.
Plaintiff A might file a complaint
against defendant B in state
court in state B. This is the easiest
case because the defendant is
located in state B and, accordingly, the
court in state B would have
personal jurisdiction over B.
Alternately, plaintiff A might try to
file a suit against defendant B in a
state court in state A. Plaintiff A
might file suit in state A because it is
more convenient
for A. Further, A may feel that the
courts of state A will be more
sympathetic to it because that is A's
home state and defendant B is
out of state. Suit may be possible in
state A if A can use a
long-arm statute to compel B to appear
and answer the complaint in
state A. This will be possible if A can
locate a statute that
purports to give court A personal
jurisdiction over B--but only if B
has the requisite "minimum contacts"
with state A will the
assertion of personal jurisdiction be
upheld. Very generally, the
court in state A may have personal
jurisdiction over B if B had
entered into state A, caused some injury
to A while in state A, and
then B returned to his or her home state
of B. In such a case, the
court in state A would be said to have
specific jurisdiction over the
defendant B. State long-arm statutes
often include a listing of
specific enumerated acts which might
occur in state A which would
give the courts of state A specific
jurisdiction over defendant B.
Additionally, although it is more rare,
B might have sufficient
ongoing and significant connections with
state A such that a court
may assert general jurisdiction over B.
The idea is that sufficient
ongoing and significant connections with
state A might make it the
case that B is subject to suit in state
A even for causes of action
that arose elsewhere because B is deemed
to be present or "at home"
in state A. In the language of the
courts, the contacts of defendant
B with state A must be "continuous and
systematic" for a court of
state A to properly exercise long-arm
jurisdiction over defendant B
for a cause of action that did not arise
in or have some other
connection to state A.
As a very general matter, a plaintiff
in a court in state A may
compel a defendant in state B to appear
and answer the complaint
filed in a court in state A so long as
the defendant in state B has
sufficient minimum contacts with state A
so that forcing an
appearance and an answer does not offend
notions of due process (this
assumes that state A has a long-arm
statute which purports to allow
jurisdiction over B). The defendant in
state B generally is
permitted to make what is called a
"special appearance" in the
court in state A for the limited purpose
of contesting the existence
of personal jurisdiction. However, if
the defendant in state B makes
a general appearance in the court in
state A to answer the complaint
without contesting the existence of
personal jurisdiction, the
defendant has waived its right to
thereafter contest the personal
jurisdiction of the court and the case
will proceed.
The key point is that an objection to
the assertion of personal
jurisdiction may be waived whereas lack
of subject matter
jurisdiction may never be waived. This
is because the due process
rights that protect against an
unfettered assertion of personal
jurisdiction are rights that are
personal rights of the defendant
(which a defendant may waive) whereas
lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is about the fundamental
power of the court to
adjudicate a dispute.
Now, you will sometimes see a
distinction made between "personal"
jurisdiction and "in personam"
jurisdiction. Full in personam
jurisdiction exists when the court can
compel the defendant to appear
in person before the court. There are
two lesser forms of personal
jurisdiction which are sufficient to
allow a court to adjudicate a
case but do not involve or require the
defendant to appear personally
before the court (indeed, often these
alternate methods are used when
it is not possible to obtain service of
process on the person of the
defendant). These forms of personal
jurisdiction are in rem
jurisdiction and quasi-in-rem
jurisdiction. In these cases, power over
the defendant is obtained
not directly over the person of the
defendant but indirectly by the
court obtaining power over property that
is owned by the defendant. In some
cases, the legal dispute arises over
ownership of an item of
property itself. Suppose title to land
is involved. A court with
jurisdiction over the location where the
real property is located
would have in rem jurisdiction to hear a
case to decide proper title
to the property even if personal service
of process may not be
obtained over the defendant. Even in
cases where the dispute does
not involve property owned by a
defendant, a plaintiff may sometimes
assert personal jurisdiction to decide a
case based on property owned
by the defendant within the jurisdiction
of the court. If the
plaintiff seizes property of the
defendant in the jurisdiction he may
obtain jurisdiction over the defendant
to the extent of the value of
the property. A personal judgment
against the defendant in such a
case based on quasi-in-rem jurisdiction
would limit any recovery to
the value of the property seized. I
mention in rem and quasi-in-rem
jurisdiction in the introduction to the
course because those are
terms that may come up while reading
cases for other courses.
Federal question jurisdiction
The statute governing federal question
jurisdiction is brief and
simple on its face. However, it can
sometimes be a matter of great
difficulty to decide whether a
particular case actually involves a
federal question. The statutory grant of
federal question
jurisdiction appears below:
s.1331.
Federal question
The
district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United
States.
(June
25,
1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 930; Pub. L.
85�554, �1, July 25,
1958, 72 Stat. 415; Pub. L. 94�574,
�2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat.
2721; Pub. L. 96�486, �2(a), Dec. 1,
1980, 94 Stat. 2369.)
Diversity jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction often is simply
described as a lawsuit
involving citizens from two different
states, for example a plaintiff
in state A decides to sue a citizen in
state B for injuries suffered
as a result of a breach of contract or a
tort (i.e. think of a tort
simplistically as an accident of some
sort). Such suits for damages
could typically be brought in a state
court of general jurisdiction.
Now, in some cases, plaintiff A may
have a second option for
bringing a lawsuit against defendant B.
Plaintiff A may bring a
lawsuit in a federal district court
against defendant B IF the case
in controversy exceeds the
"jurisdictional amount" set forth in
the federal statute. Currently, this
jurisdictional amount is set at
$75,000 [note that the matter in
controversy must exceed $75,000, and
not simply be equal to $75,000].
(Congress has periodically increased
the jurisdictional amount in light of
inflation. Periodically
increasing the jurisdictional amount is
one method used to reduce the
caseload in the federal courts.)
Consider the following excerpt from
the diversity jurisdiction statute:
s.1332.
Diversity of citizenship; amount
in controversy; costs
(a)
The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value
of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between�
(1)
citizens of different States;
(2)
citizens of a State and citizens or
subjects of a foreign state,
except that the district courts
shall not have original jurisdiction
under this subsection of an action
between citizens of a State and
citizens or subjects of a foreign
state who are lawfully admitted for
permanent residence in the United
States and are domiciled in the
same State;
(3)
citizens of different States and in
which citizens or subjects of a
foreign state are additional
parties; and
(4)
a foreign state, defined in section
1603(a) of this title, as
plaintiff and citizens of a State or
of different States.
*
* *
Venue
Plaintiff A may, in our example,
commence an original action in
federal district court assuming
satisfaction of the case in
controversy amount. However, the
particular federal district court
that plaintiff A may select to file a
complaint is further subject to
rules governing what is called "venue."
There is little doubt
that venue will be proper in the federal
district court in which
defendant B resides. Further, if the
alleged misconduct occurred in
state A, venue may be proper in federal
district court in state A. Otherwise, if
no alleged misconduct took place in
state A, venue may
not be proper in the federal district
court in state A. Consider the
following excerpt from the federal
statute governing venue.
s. 1391.
Venue generally
(a)
Applicability of Section.�Except as
otherwise provided by law�
(1)
this section shall govern the venue
of all civil actions brought in
district courts of the United
States; and
(2)
the proper venue for a civil action
shall be determined without
regard to whether the action is
local or transitory in nature.
(b)
Venue in General.�A civil action may
be brought in�
(1)
a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants
are residents of the State in which
the district is located;
(2)
a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred, or a substantial part of
property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or
(3)
if there is no district in which an
action may otherwise be brought
as provided in this section, any
judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with
respect to such action.
*
* *
You might note that diversity
jurisdiction is based on the concept
of �citizenship� whereas venue
determinations depend, where
relevant, on the concept of �residency.�
As you might suppose,
the federal state thus defines the
concept of residency:
*
* *
(c)
Residency.�For all venue purposes�
(1)
a natural person, including an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the United States,
shall be deemed to reside in the
judicial district in which that
person is domiciled;
(2)
an entity with the capacity to sue
and be sued in its common name
under applicable law, whether or not
incorporated, shall be deemed to
reside, if a defendant, in any
judicial district in which such
defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with
respect to the civil action in
question and, if a plaintiff, only
in
the judicial district in which it
maintains its principal place of
business; and
(3)
a defendant not resident in the
United States may be sued in any
judicial district, and the joinder
of such a defendant shall be
disregarded in determining where the
action may be brought with
respect to other defendants.
*
* *
Removal
Now, suppose that plaintiff A does file
suit against defendant B
in state court in state A. Assume that
defendant B has sufficient
minimum contacts with state A (or
continuous and systematic
connections with state A) so that the
court in state A may properly
assert jurisdiction over defendant B. It
is still possible that this
case might end up in federal court. If
the jurisdictional amount is
satisfied (i.e. the damage claim is for
more than $75,000), defendant
B has the option of seeking to �remove�
the case from state court
A to federal district court in state A.
Consider the following
excerpt from the removal statute of
Title 28.
�1441.
Removal of civil actions
(a)
Generally.�Except as otherwise
expressly provided by Act of
Congress, 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.
*
* *
The theory behind allowing defendant B
to remove the state court
action to federal court is that removal
may eliminate or reduce any
prejudice that defendant B may face in a
�foreign� state court
tribunal. (Suppose that a local football
hero in Texas decides to
sue a New York based bank in a state
court in Texas. In such a case,
it is of concern that the local Texas
judge might favor the
plaintiff�particularly if the state
court judge is subject to
periodic re-election.) You might recall
from Lecture 4 and elsewhere
that the structure of the federal
judiciary is such that it
particularly insulates judges from local
or political pressure (i.e.
by providing life tenure and prohibiting
a diminution in salary). As
you also may recall in our discussion of
judicial independence, state
court systems often do not provide the
same level of protection
against potential bias. It is for this
reason that, in cases
involving larger damages (i.e. in which
the jurisdictional amount is
satisfied), defendants have the option
to remove cases to federal
court.
Complete Diversity
The right to bring an action in
district court (and to remove an
action to federal court) is not a
universal option in a case between
citizens of two states both because
there is the jurisdictional
amount AND because there is a
requirement of �complete diversity�
of the parties. What this means is that,
in a multi-party case, the
plaintiffs all have to be citizens of
states that differ from the
states in which the defendants are
citizens. For example, if the
plaintiff is from state A and the
defendants are from both state A
and from state B, there is not complete
diversity. In the absence of
complete diversity, the federal courts
would not have subject matter
jurisdiction even if the case or
controversy involved damages
asserted to be more than $75,000. What
this means is that, in
practice, you need some fairly detailed
rules to determine the state
of citizenship of litigants. Consider
the following excerpt from the
diversity jurisdiction statute which
attempts to identify the
citizenship of litigants:
�1332.
Diversity of citizenship; amount
in controversy; costs
*
* *
(c)
For the purposes of this section and
section 1441 of this title�
(1)
a corporation shall be deemed to be
a citizen of every State and
foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or
foreign state where it has its
principal place of business, except
that in any direct action against
the insurer of a policy or contract
of liability insurance, whether
incorporated or unincorporated, to
which action the insured is not
joined as a party-defendant, such
insurer shall be deemed a citizen
of�
(A)
every State and foreign state of
which the insured is a citizen;
(B)
every State and foreign state by
which the insurer has been
incorporated; and
(C)
the State or foreign state where the
insurer has its principal place
of business; and
(2)
the legal representative of the
estate of a decedent shall be deemed
to be a citizen only of the same
State as the decedent, and the legal
representative of an infant or
incompetent shall be deemed to be a
citizen only of the same State as
the infant or incompetent.
*
* *
United States as plaintiff
The statute providing for subject
matter jurisdiction when the
United States is a plaintiff is fairly
straightforward.
�1345.
United States as plaintiff
Except
as
otherwise provided by Act of
Congress, the district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions, suits or proceedings
commenced by the United States, or
by any agency or officer thereof
expressly authorized to sue by Act
of Congress.
(June
25,
1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 933.)
United States as defendant
The statute providing for subject
matter jurisdiction when the
United States is a defendant is much
more intricate.
�1346.
United States as defendant
(a)
The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction, concurrent
with
the United States Court of Federal
Claims, of:
(1)
Any civil action against the United
States for the recovery of any
internal-revenue tax alleged to have
been erroneously or illegally
assessed or collected, or any
penalty claimed to have been
collected
without authority or any sum alleged
to have been excessive or in any
manner wrongfully collected under
the internal-revenue laws;
(2)
Any other civil action or claim
against the United States, not
exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded
either upon the Constitution, or
any Act of Congress, or any
regulation of an executive
department, or
upon any express or implied contract
with the United States, or for
liquidated or unliquidated damages
in cases not sounding in tort,
except that the district courts
shall not have jurisdiction of any
civil action or claim against the
United States founded upon any
express or implied contract with the
United States or for liquidated
or unliquidated damages in cases not
sounding in tort which are
subject to sections 7104(b)(1) and
7107(a)(1) of title 41. For the
purpose of this paragraph, an
express or implied contract with the
Army and Air Force Exchange Service,
Navy Exchanges, Marine Corps
Exchanges, Coast Guard Exchanges, or
Exchange Councils of the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall be considered
an
express or implied contract with the
United States.
(b)(1)
Subject
to the provisions of chapter 171 of
this title, the district
courts, together with the United
States District Court for the
District of the Canal Zone and the
District Court of the Virgin
Islands, shall have exclusive
jurisdiction of civil actions on
claims
against the United States, for money
damages, accruing on and after
January 1, 1945, for injury or loss
of property, or personal injury
or death caused by the negligent or
wrongful act or omission of any
employee of the Government while
acting within the scope of his
office or employment, under
circumstances where the United
States, if
a private person, would be liable to
the claimant in accordance with
the law of the place where the act
or omission occurred.
(2)
No person convicted of a felony who
is incarcerated while awaiting
sentencing or while serving a
sentence may bring a civil action
against the United States or an
agency, officer, or employee of the
Government, for mental or emotional
injury suffered while in custody
without a prior showing of physical
injury or the commission of a
sexual act (as defined in section
2246 of title 18).
(c)
The jurisdiction conferred by this
section includes jurisdiction of
any set-off, counterclaim, or other
claim or demand whatever on the
part of the United States against
any plaintiff commencing an action
under this section.
(d)
The district courts shall not have
jurisdiction under this section of
any civil action or claim for a
pension.
(e)
The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of any civil
action against the United States
provided in section 6226, 6228(a),
7426, or 7428 (in the case of the
United States district court for
the District of Columbia) or section
7429 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
(f)
The district courts shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction of
civil actions under section 2409a to
quiet title to an estate or
interest in real property in which
an interest is claimed by the
United States.
(g)
Subject to the provisions of chapter
179, the district courts of the
United States shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over any civil action
commenced under section 453(2) of
title 3, by a covered employee
under chapter 5 of such title.
(June
25,
1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 933; Apr.
25, 1949, ch. 92, �2(a), 63
Stat. 62; May 24, 1949, ch. 139,
�80(a), (b), 63 Stat. 101; Oct. 31,
1951, ch. 655, �50(b), 65 Stat. 727;
July 30, 1954, ch. 648, �1, 68
Stat. 589; Pub. L. 85�508, �12(e),
July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 348;
Pub. L. 88�519, Aug. 30, 1964, 78
Stat. 699; Pub. L. 89�719,
title II, �202(a), Nov. 2, 1966, 80
Stat. 1148; Pub. L. 91�350,
�1(a), July 23, 1970, 84 Stat. 449;
Pub. L. 92�562, �1, Oct. 25,
1972, 86 Stat. 1176; Pub. L. 94�455,
title XII, �1204(c)(1), title
XIII, �1306(b)(7), Oct. 4, 1976, 90
Stat. 1697, 1719; Pub. L.
95�563, �14(a), Nov. 1, 1978, 92
Stat. 2389; Pub. L. 97�164,
title I, �129, Apr. 2, 1982, 96
Stat. 39; Pub. L. 97�248, title
IV, �402(c)(17), Sept. 3, 1982, 96
Stat. 669; Pub. L. 99�514, �2,
Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095; Pub.
L. 102�572, title IX,
�902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat.
4516; Pub. L. 104�134, title
I, �101[(a)] [title VIII, �806],
Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321,
1321�75; renumbered title I, Pub. L.
104�140, �1(a), May 2,
1996, 110 Stat. 1327; Pub. L.
104�331, �3(b)(1), Oct. 26, 1996,
110 Stat. 4069; Pub. L. 111�350,
�5(g)(6), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat.
3848; Pub. L. 113�4, title XI,
�1101(b), Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat.
134.)
Forum non conveniens
Even if a civil action has been
commenced in a district court
which has subject matter jurisdiction,
personal jurisdiction and
proper venue, the court may transfer the
case to another district
court if it determines that the
alternate location is a more
convenient forum to try the case.
Consider the following excerpt
from Title 28 (which is sometimes
referred to as the federal version
of the doctrine of forum non
conveniens):
�1404.
Change of venue
(a)
For the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any
other
district or division where it might
have been brought or to any
district or division to which all
parties have consented.
*
* *
You may recall that, in Lecture 1, you
briefly considered statutes
which allow the parties to a contract to
specify the forum in which
disputes will be heard. Such clauses in
contracts often are referred
to as �forum selection clauses.� It
might interest you to know
that, in federal district court, there
is a proper way and an
improper way for a party to seek
enforcement of a forum selection
clause. A forum selection clause may not
be enforced by making a
motion to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. sec.
1406(a) or Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (which would be
made when venue is wrong or
improper). Technically, venue in a
particular court may be proper
even if the parties have agreed that the
case should be heard in
another court. Rather, the forum
selection clause may be enforced by
making a motion to transfer under sec.
1404(a) above. (Note, this
procedure applies when the forum
selected is another federal district
court. It is less clear how to proceed
if the forum selected is a
state court or a foreign tribunal,
though perhaps a motion might be
made under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).) These issues
are discussed in detail in Atlantic
Marine
Construction Co. v. U.S. District
Court for the Western
District of Texas, a U.S. Supreme
Court case. Though this may
seem like an overly technical and
detailed issue (particularly for
the start of class), I think it is worth
considering because many of
you will deal with forum selection
clauses on a regular basis in
private practice. They are important in
the real world and it is
worth knowing some technical details
about how they work so, if asked
by a client, you will appear
knowledgeable. You will learn more
about motion practice in Lecture 6 when
we consider how a case moves
through the federal courts.
Florida courts also may dismiss cases
based on the doctrine of
forum non conveniens�which is
interpreted in the same manner as the
federal statute. Consider the Florida
Supreme Court's decision in
Rabie
Cortez
v. Palace Resorts, Inc. for a
recent discussion of this
doctrine. For an overview of this case,
and some background on the
importance and reasons for the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, read
Florida
Supreme
Court Rejects Reverse Forum Shopping
Through Invocation of
the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine,
National Law Review (June 27,
2013).
Review outline and questions from
the Federal Judicial Center:
What
is
a court?
A
court is an institution that the
government sets up to settle
disputes through a legal process.
Did Bill Jones run a red light
before his car ran into John
Smith�s, or was the light green, as
he
says it was? Did Frank Williams rob
the bank? Courts decide what
really happened and what should be
done about it. They decide whether
a person committed a crime and what
the punishment should be. They
also provide a peaceful way to
decide private disputes that people
can�t resolve themselves.
Courts
use
the adversary process to help them
reach a decision. Through this
process, each side presents its most
persuasive arguments to the fact
finder (judge or jury) and
emphasizes the facts that support
its
case. Each side also draws attention
to any flaws in its opponent�s
arguments. The fact finder then
decides the case. American judicial
tradition holds that the truth will
be reached most effectively
through this adversary process.
There
are
two kinds of courts in the federal
court system: the trial court
and the appellate court. The trial
court's basic function is to
resolve disputes by determining the
facts and applying legal
principles to decide who is right.
The appellate court's task is to
determine whether the law was
applied correctly in the trial
court.
The
decision of a court may affect many
people besides those involved in
the lawsuit. For example, the
Supreme Court�s decision in the 1954
case Brown v. Board of Education,
that it was unconstitutional to
require white children and black
children to attend separate schools,
meant not only that plaintiff Linda
Brown could enroll in a formerly
all-white school, but also that
other African-American children
could
too. (Of course, this didn�t happen
overnight; court orders
implementing the decision were not
always obeyed.) Court decisions
not only tell those involved in the
case what their rights are, but
also tell other people how the
courts would probably decide similar
cases. When a decision is made by a
court with a broad geographic
reach, such as the U.S. Supreme
Court or the supreme court of a
state, it can provide guidance to
people who are considering legal
action and may help them resolve
their dispute without going to
court.
How
is a federal court different from a
state court?
There
are
two kinds of courts in this
country--federal courts and state
courts.
Federal
courts
are established under the U.S.
Constitution by Congress to
decide disputes involving the
Constitution and laws passed by
Congress. State and local courts are
established by a state (within
states there are also local courts
that are established by cities,
counties, and other municipalities,
which we are including in the
general discussion of state courts).
The
differences between federal courts
and state courts are further
defined by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction refers to the kinds of
cases a
court is authorized to hear.
Federal
court
jurisdiction is limited to the types
of cases listed in the
Constitution and specifically
provided for by Congress. For the
most
part, federal courts only hear
-
cases
in which the United States is a
party;
-
cases
involving violations of the U.S.
Constitution or federal laws
(under federal-question
jurisdiction);
-
cases
between citizens of different
states if the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000
(under diversity jurisdiction);
and
-
bankruptcy,
copyright, patent, and maritime
law cases.
State
courts,
in contrast, have broad
jurisdiction, so the cases
individual
citizens are most likely to be
involved in--such as robberies,
traffic violations, broken
contracts, and family disputes--are
usually tried in state courts. The
only cases state courts are not
allowed to hear are lawsuits against
the United States and those
involving certain specific federal
laws: criminal, antitrust,
bankruptcy, patent, copyright, and
some maritime law cases.
In
many cases, both federal and state
courts have jurisdiction. This
allows parties to choose whether to
go to state court or to federal
court.
Criminal
cases
involving federal laws can be tried
only in federal court, but
most criminal cases involve
violations of state law and are
tried in
state court. We all know, for
example, that robbery is a crime,
but
what law says it is a crime? By and
large, state laws, not federal
laws, make robbery a crime. There
are only a few federal laws about
robbery, such as the law that makes
it a federal crime to rob a bank
whose deposits are insured by a
federal agency. Examples of other
federal crimes are bringing illegal
drugs into the country or across
state lines and use of the U.S.
mails to swindle consumers. Crimes
committed on federal property, such
as national parks or military
reservations, are also prosecuted in
federal court.
Federal
courts
may also hear cases concerning state
laws if the issue is
whether the state law violates the
federal Constitution. Suppose a
state law forbids slaughtering
animals outside of certain limited
areas. A neighborhood association
brings a case in state court
against a defendant who sacrifices
goats in his backyard. When the
court issues an order (called an
injunction) forbidding the defendant
from further sacrifices, the
defendant challenges the state law
in
federal court as an unconstitutional
infringement of his religious
freedom.
Some
kinds
of conduct are illegal under both
federal and state laws. For
example, federal laws prohibit
employment discrimination, and the
states have added their own laws. A
person can go to federal or state
court to bring a case under the
federal law or both the federal and
state laws. A case that only
involves a state law can be brought
only
in state court.
Appeals
for
review of actions by federal
administrative agencies are also
federal civil cases. Suppose, for
example, that the Environmental
Protection Agency issued a permit to
a paper mill to discharge water
used in its milling process into the
Scenic River, over the objection
of area residents. The residents
could ask a federal court of appeals
to review the agency�s decision.
How
do federal courts know what
procedures to follow?
Federal
rules
of procedure govern the various
types of court proceedings.
They are as follows:
Federal
Rules
of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ.
P.);
Federal
Rules
of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Crim.
P.);
Federal
Rules
of Appellate Procedure (Fed. R. App.
P.);
Federal
Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure (Fed. R.
Bankr. P.); and
Federal
Rules
of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid.).
The
rules were developed by the federal
courts, with the authorization of
Congress. Although all federal
courts follow these rules, each
district court, bankruptcy court,
and court of appeals, as well as
the U.S. Supreme Court, has also
developed its own local rules.
Courts develop local rules to
clarify local practices and
procedures.
The local rules can�t contradict the
federal rules, but they fill
in details that are left open in the
federal rules. For example, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provide general rules for how a
party can start a lawsuit and how
the other party answers; some
districts� local rules provide more
specifics, including even
requirements for the kind of paper
to be used for court filings.
The
federal court system can be compared
to a patchwork quilt, with all
courts laid out in an orderly manner
but each one having some
differences from all the others. The
differences are not surprising
in light of the large size of the
federal system and the impact of
local legal practices on individual
courts.
Review
Questions
1.
Melvin Blue entered a federally
insured bank and robbed money from
the safe. Where will this case be
filed?
Your
answer:
___federal; ___ state; ___ either.
2.
Two weeks later, Blue robbed a man
who had just taken money out of an
ATM machine in a grocery store.
Where will this case be filed?
Your
answer:
___federal; ___ state; ___ either.
3.
Mary Brown works for ABC Corp.; she
claims that her boss refused to
promote her because she is a woman.
Where will Mary Brown file this
case?
Your
answer:
___federal; ___ state; ___ either.
4.
True or false? There are two kinds
of courts in the federal court
system: the trial court and the
Supreme Court.
Your
answer:
___ True: ___False.
5.
True or false? A civil suit can be
brought in either a federal or
state court.
Your
answer:
___ True: ___False.
6.
True or false? A person accused of a
crime is generally charged in a
formal accusation. The name of this
accusation for a misdemeanor is
called an indictment.
Your
answer:
___ True: ___False.
7.
True or false? An indvidual facing
bankruptcy has two options:
liquidation or reorganization. Under
liquidation, the individual is
not allowed to keep any property if
the amount of debt is greater
than the amount of personal
property.
Your
answer:
___ True: ___False.
8.
True or false. "Of all court cases
filed annually in this
country, for every federal case
filed, thirty are filed in state
courts."
Your
answer:
___ True: ___False.
|