Lecture 1 (page 3, after handwriting notes):

If we have pan consent of all parties: a magistrate judge can conduct a jury or non jury trial (for
ex: when district judges tell you that he will not be able to hear your cases in lot fof months, so
if parties consent, a magistrate judge can hear the case).

Rule: any appeal of the magistrate judgement is taken to the cuicit court of appeals.

Rule: under rule 53, federal judges may appoint special masters without the parties consent, to
be paid for by the parties for the purpose of addressing pre trials or post trials matters, in
complex litigations that cannot be effectively and timely address by a districyt court or
magistrate judge.

US SUPREME COURT:
Rule: the constitution gives the supreme court ORIGIANLK AND EXCLUSIVE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION when 1 states sues another state, for example: a boundarie dispute, an interstate
water dispute.

The us supreme court does not hold the trial himself, they appoint a special master, to hold
hearings, collect evidence and then make recommendations… etc.

Rule: the supreme court also has original but not exclusive subject matter jurisdiction where:
1. embassators or foreign counrties are parties to a law suit;
2. a state is a party to a law suit; for example: when the federal government suits a state.
It is rare for the supremen court to accept this jurisdiction and it normally refers these cases to
the federal district court.

Rule: in all other cases, the supremen court shall have appelate jurisdiction.

Rule: congress control the procedure for taking appeals to the supreme court. It can even limit
the court’s appelate jurisdiction. It can remove whole classes of cases from federal appelate
jurisdiction.
Concept: congress could say that we are denyging jurisdiction to appelate in fron of us supreme
court in cases of prayers in schools. They could tecnically do it.

Rule: under the constitution necessary in proper clause cpngress can require state courtd to
hear actions based on federal statues. The constituon striclt y prohibites states courts of
general jurisdiction from refusing to entertrain federal claims solely because they are based on
federal law. The supremacy clause in the us constituion spefcifally metions that state courts are
bound to enforce federal laws. When drafting a new law, congress has the option to declare
exclusive federal cpurt subject matter jurisdiction or it can expressely or implied provide for
concurrent state court subjkect matter jurisdiction. There is a strong presumption in favour of
concurrent state court subject matter jurisdiction.
Concept: whenever congress enacts a law, congress can do a couple of things: 1) it can provide
expressely for federal court subject matter jurisdiction (we want these claims only to be
brought in the federal court). If 1 no, it can expressely provide that these claims can be brought
in front of state courts. But it is implied that when congress enacts a law, the state courts shall
have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction ( there is a strong strong presumption in favour of
concurrent state court subject matter jurisdiction. )

Rule: the appeals from the highest state courts, or from a fderal circuit court of appeals,
involving a federal issue, maybe taken to the us supreme court by social rare (rorary) (by
permission). Under the rule 4, a vote of 4 justices is needed to grant certification (so that case is
hear by the us supreme court).

Rule: in an emergency where the cases is of such importance that the supreme court doesn’t
want to wait months or years then it can grant cert, it can grant social rorary. BEFORE
JUDGMENT, direclty from a federal disteict court, bypassing ciurit court of appeals review.
Concept: sometimes the supreme court can grant cert direcly from a district court. It is rare but
it can happen.

Rule: congress has expressely provided for appeals as a right, not cert, may be atuomotically
taken to the supreme court from a 3 judge district court, (skipping cicurit coult of appels
review) in claims involving the aportioment of state or confgresional voting disctricts, or issues
involving discrimination underr a fgederal civil right act.

Supreme court 2015: says this! Check book!

Rule: supreme court has 3 options from a 3 district judge panel, 1) summoraly affirmit; 2)
diusmissing for lack of substational federal question; 3) accepted for full appelate review.

Rule: the supreme court will not review a state court decision (not federal), from the state’s
highest coyrt, until it is final. Also, if the case does not involve CAT, federal question.
C: does the claim involve some issue of the US constituion (NOT state constitution)? Ex: due
process, equal protection; first amedment freedom of speech;( this is a federal question), or
A: does it involve an act of congress? Are we under a federal law? or
T: treaty signed with a foreign country.
If we have cat, then we have a federal question, we can get in into federal court.

STON (stan): require from removal case from state to federal court.
If the case does not involve cat, even if it comes from the state highest court, and it is a final
decision, the US supreme court will dismiss the appeal, because of the abstence of a substantial
federal question. The constituon prohibites such a suit in any federal court, not just the
supreme court.

Video minuto 55: ejemplo! Verlo!

Rule: indepedant and adequate state grounds:

THE us supreme court opnions do not prevent state courts for being more protective and
granting even greater constituional rights under their own states laws and state constituions.

Rule. States must at a minumum provide the same constituional rights guarnateed bybthe
federal constituoon, and the us supreme court. But states can provide even greater constituion
protections.

Rule. Under the doctrine of IASG, (independent and adequeta states grounds), if a state hightes
court (final judgment), rest on both federal and state grounds, but the judgment can be appeal
under an adequate basis of state law, that is more protective of the citizen’s right and it is
independent of any federal law, then the supreme court will decline to hear an appeal from
that state highest court.

Rule. A state ground is adequate where the state judgment will be uphled by the supreme court
even if the states courts opinoon on the federal issue was reserve. This doctrine prevents the
supreme court from issuoing an advisotry opinnion on federal law. For example. A state ex
prosecutor could not appeal to the us supreme court a judgment from the state highest court
that the states death oenalty was unconstitutional, under both state and federal constituions,
because even if the state court error’s on federal law was overturned on the basis that the
supreme court held the death penalty is not unsonctituional, that state court judgment will not
be reverse because it was supported by state law independat and adequate of federal law.

Rule. If the state courts opnion refers to both state and federal constituions, cases or statues,
and it is not clear what law was relied upon byte state court, then the supreme courts
presumes that federal law formed the sole basis of the states court decsion. To avoid this
presumption, the state court opnion must include a clear statement that deferal law did not
include the courts decision. Like this, with this clear statement, the states court removed
supreme court review of this decision.

Subject matter jurisdicion of federal courts.

Rule. Because federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff cannot
automtically comence a civil action in a federal court. A federal court judgemnt wihtout subject
matter jurisdicition is void. This defense is never waived and can be raised at anytime. The keys
to the door of a federal courthouse involve SADJ

S: supplemental jurisdiction allowing a federal court to hear a state claim provided that claim
arose out of the same nucleos of facts of a valid pending federal CAT claim, even though
independly that state claim could not enter a federal court.
A: arising under jurisdiction also known as federal question jurisdiction requiring a case or
controversy dependant upon constuction of CAT.
Arising under jurisdiction example: as soon as the USA is involved, the us officer, the
administrative agency, bankrupcy proceedings (bankrucpy is mention in the constitution,
congress has enacted the bankrucpy law, this goes to federal court), trademark and copyright
(is mention in the constitution, congress has enacted laws for this, this goes to federal court
CAT), diversity jurisdiction (same thing).

D: diversity jurisdiction involving questions of state law where plaintifss and defendadants are
domiciled in different states and the amount the plaitiiff is seeking exceeded 75000 dollars,

J: the constitution mandates that only the justiciable claims (scram) can be asserted in federal
courts. Scram is a simply constituional restrain on the authority of federal courts to exercise
judicial power.

Justiciability

Rule. When entering a federal court with a CAT federal question, the plaintiff must establishes
she has a justiciable claim. Scram. Justiciable issues arise most frequesntly when 1) challening
governmental action, for example: short of amending the constituion, 2) congress in enatcing a
federal law cannot waive or modify the SCRAM requirements. For example: it unconstitutionally
gives citizens groups standing to protect wild species.
If a plaintiff does not have standing, scram, justicialibity, congress cannot give it to them,
because the constituionn says that only justiciability claims can enter the federal courts. The us
court says that if the plaintiff has not standing, congress cannot give that plaintiff standing,
standing is a constitutional requirement to enter a federal court, and congress cannot waive
that requrement (only if the us constitution is amended, but never done this).

SCRAM

S= STANDING.

Rule. This doctrine is for the protection of the seperation of power doctrine to prevent federal
courts from infring on the powers of the other two political branches. Stading focueses on
whether the plaintiff is the proper person to rbing the claim into the federal court that is, does
the plaiitnff have a personal stake in the controversy? The plaitiff must allegede a concrete and
patricularise injury in fact, either actual or inminent and not speculative that is tracaeble to the
defendant conduct. That injury will be corrected bya faborable court ruling.

Question: has the plaitiff suffered an injury different from the rest of the people, the country,
does the plaiitnff have a personal stake in the controversy?

Rule. The stading requirement must continue thorughout the law suit from start to finish.
*example: all the way from the beginning, the appeal, the supreme court. Ejemplo: minuto
1h:18min lecture 1.

Rule. Cybercrimes: in one case they hacked information on credit card *ejemplo 1h 20 min).

Rule. A paitiff injury must be distinct from the rest of the public at large that is, the govenemnt
in proper conduct affex the plaitiff differently from the rest of the people. A plaitff cannot go
into federal court and imply complain the government is violeting the law or it is not enforcing
it. Ex: 1h, 24 min.

Rule. The reason a plaitiff must show more than a general grivence, is because if the plaitff has
a legitimate stake in the outcome of the suit she will be vigoresly litigate that claim. Example: a
wealthy female that is not pregnant, lacks stading to challeenge a law that prohibited public
funding for abortions for indigent females. She personally suffered not concrete injury from this
law and will not benefit from a favoraube judgment.

What happens if I lack standing? If I lack stadning, the court will summarily dismiss it.

Rule. P was injured from/during a traffic stop, from a choco applied by los angeles city police
officer. It is an uncostituional police practice. Minuto 1h 31m. Rule. police policy allowed
chocos even though the police officer was not faced with personal injury. P sued in federal
districy court seeking: 1. An injuction, and 2. Money damages. Under 42 usc 1983 by asserting a
federal civil rights claim, assert a constitution violation. Rule. P has standing to assert the
money damage claim but not the injuction claim. An injcution requires an ungoing harm and
the plaintiff was not lieky to be harmed by a chochon in the future. The injuction claim was too
speculative. And p could not assert a actual or inminent harm. P did not have a stake in the
outcome of the injutctive claim. Thus it was not justiciable.

IMPORTANT: When ever the base examiners on multiple choice questions or essay have two
or anything we have to segregate them, talk about them separately, separate one from the
other!!!!

Ux tax payers generally lack stading to contest federal spending because such a plaitff cannot
show an injury that differs from the rest of society. Such a plaintiff will not have personal stake
in the outcome of that suit. A narrow exception permits tax payers standing to challegne
congresses taxing and spending power if it direcly benefits a religion, in violation of the first
amendment. See lecture 24.

Rule. Tax payers lack standing if the federal conduct was: 1. A gift under congresses property
clause power where federal land was given to a religious school or 2. Finaicla incentives given
to religious groups involved in community service where it was the president who spent from a
general apropiation granted by congress

Rule. State admissible tax payers have standing to challenge an unwalful expnediture of
government funds the supreme court has held that the intrest ofstate or admissible tax payers
is direct and immediate and the appropate remedy is an injuction, to prevent misued of tax
payers money.

Rule. Generally standing requires a plaitiff to assert her own constituional rights and not the
rights of third persons. Unless 1. The plaintiff also has sustained a substantial injury in fact, 2.
There exist a special relationship bewteen the plaitff and the third party who constituional
rights have been violated, and 3. The third pary somehow is hindered from protecting her own
interest. 1,2 and 3, have to be there, all of them.
Example:
a. litigants in civil and criminal trials have standing to assert an equal protection violation
of a jury who was disqualify by a preventory challenge for racial or gender reaons. Min.
1.46 h.
b. a doctor has standing to consituionally challenge the denial of medical benefits to the
doctors low income abortions patients.

An association has standing to sue on behalf of its members when 1. Some of its memebrs will
have standing to sue in their own right, that is association complaint must allege that its
members where among those injured 2, the interest that the associatiin seeks to protect are
related to the association underlyned purpose, and 3. Neither the claim asserted nor the relief
requuested requires participation in the law suit by the associations individuals memebrss, That
is just an injuction is being sought by the association.

On the bar exam MRS involves justiciable claims and whether there exist a case of controversy.
M mutness, r. ridness and s. standing, those are the three big elemtns for justiciable claims!

Rule. Article III us constituion requires a case or contoversy must be presented to ensure an
adveserial contest in the law suit to prevent collusive hipotetical academic or moot claims. This
case or controvery requirement prevents federal courts from ginving advosiry opinions. To
satisfy case or controversy requirement of the US constitution you have to satifies MRS.

R = Ridness

Rule. Ridness focuses on whether it is too early for the court to hear the case. It arises when the
plaintiff sue is premature, because p’s injuries has not yet ocurred. That is it is speculative and it
may never ocurred.
Rule. Ridness avoid judicial entilgments in abstracts disagreements over policies of federal
administratives agencies which presently do not 1. Comand anyone to do anything, 2. Prevent
anyone from doing something, 3. Revoque a right, or 4. Subject someone to civil or criminal
liability. There is no claim because it is not reaady yet.

Rule. The p may not sue the government to prevent a mere policy change. For example a new
federal regulation authorising wirleess inspections of food processing plants = a law suit is not
ready for court review if no inspection have been condocted or ordered under the new
regulation. Thus, if nothing has happened to the P but he is afraid something will then generally
there is not issue ready for court review. Look at facts!

M = Mutness

Rule. The doctrine of standing considers whether the P is the proper person to bring the suit,
and the law of rideness ensures that the p does not assert the clim too early, but the law of
mutness seek to prevent a P from assrting the claim too late when the p has not longer a
personal stake in the outcome because of changed circumstances, usually after the action was
commenced. A claim is mutt when the p no longer has a legally con?? interest in the outcome
of the law suit. Thus A judgment sought by the p will not affaect her rights due to change
circumstances in which the p now only posses a general grivance similar to any citizen unhappy
with the law.

The case is dismissed because it is not justiciable anymore as the circustamnces has changes
and the case is now mutt,.

Rule there are 3 discretionary exception to this doctrine VCR

v. volunary sucession doctrine which arises on the eve of trial or appelate arugemnt a
defendant volunarity abandons its unwlful conduct. This change will not render the cause mutt
unless the D proves that it is absolutey clear that the d conduct’s could not reasonably be
expected to reoccur.

Another exception (C ) = In class actions even though the main p cases has become mutt, if at
least one other member of the class continues to have a case or controversy then the class
actions is not mutt.

R = the case is capable of repetition doctrine = which applies onlky when it exist a reasonable
exptectartion that the same p will be sibjected to the same injury again, but bacsue of time
factor the issue evades appelated review. Min 2h13. It is not mutt because it is capable of
repetion against the same plaintiff.

The abstetion doctrine -= THE A IN SCRAM

Rule. One basis for a federal court absteining from exercising jurisdiction is whether there is a
pending paralel state court proceeding and the issues are substantially identical between the
same parties. This is refer to as the colorado river doctrine. It seeks to avoid pecaemill litigation
and possible inconsistent judgments, allowing the federal court to abstan and dismiss the p
claims without prejudice to recomence it in the state court. Min h2, 19m.

Rule. When a federal court is ask to interpret a state statute allegely vilating the us constitution
or it is in conlifct with a federal law, but the state statute has not yet been reviewed by the
state’s highest court, and the statute is acceptable to a state judicial interpretation, that may
modify the statute, and mutt the need for federal judicial interpretation, then federal court
may abstain from deciding the sate law issue, and inmediately seek certification of that issue
from the state’s highest court. Where it is avalibale, certification is the faourite alternative to
abstention. Out of respect federal court wait for the state court to interpret. 47 states have a
form of cert. let the

Rule. A federal should not invoke abstention if a. the state highest court declines to certify that
issue. Certification is discretionary, b. there will be a long wait before the state court
interpretes that law, c. there is no ambiguoty in the state statute (the language of the statute is
really clear and therefore there is no space for ambiguity).

Rule. Under the younger abstention doctrine federal court should abstain from interveting in
and disrupting PENDING STATE CRIMINAL, quasy criminal, CIVIL OR ADMINISTRATIVE agency
CASES based on comedy (=respect) and federalism to preserve the integrity of the state judicial
system. The supreme court says any federal issue can be address in the state judicial
proceeding. Out of respect, we are not getting involve in PENDING STATE CRIMINAL, quasy
criminal, CIVIL OR ADMINISTRATIVE agency CASES.

Rule. Younger abstenton originally applied only to pending state criminal proceedings but in
2013 it was expanded by the US supreme court to include state civilproceedings, that implicate
a state interest in enforcing orders of state courts or states agencies such as 1. Or 2. 1. Civil
administrative enforcement proceedings that are quasy criminal involving allegations of wrong
doing that impose sanctions such as the loss of medical or law licenses, loss of govement
employment, or an administrative disciplianry hearing, or 2. State civil proceedings tha further a
state ability to perfrom its judicial functions. For example,a,b,c,d
a. appoitng a receiver in a mortgae forclosure;
b. appinting a guradian in a capacity proceeding
c. contmptive court proceeding???? or
d. An injuction proceeding.

Rooker-feldmant doctrine (two us supreme court cases)

Rule. Once a state court proceeding has concluded, the paty who lost cannot seek to collarely
attacked in the federal discrict court by asseting that a federal right was violated in the state
court proceeding. Frequently the p in the federal court proceeding names the federal judge and
endoor a federal prosecutor as defendats???

Rule. Federal districy courts can only exercise original jusridtcition and not appleate jurisdiction.
Federal courts must give res jiudicada and full faith and credit to the state court decision.
Congress has empowered only the us supreme court to exercise federalappelate jurisdition on
state court judgements and only in appeals from the state’s highest court.

Rule. The proper procedural remedy where SCRAM Is deficient? insufficent??? is either a
motion for summery judgment or a motion to dismiss because the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction

Rule. If the scram elements are satisfied and therefore there exista justiciable claim, (scram or
mrs), mrs is scram without case or controversy and justiciable claim, look to see if the case
presents 1 or 2. 1. A CAT federal question, or 2. Diverisyt jurisdiction.

Rule. In determinating whether a federal cat claim exist, federal court looks exlsuively to the p
complain, and whether a federal question is presented on the face of the complain. Under the
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule, federal courts will not consider that the p mentions in the
complain that the d may rise a federal statute as a defense or may assert a related counter
claim involving a federal issue. (essay ube july 2016). Min 2h 41min.

Maddley case plaintiff, injured by a reroad: money + life pass

Concept: the reroad seeks to remove the case from the federal court because it involved
federal rule. Read in book!

Diversity jurisdiction:

Rule. Because of posible bias in state courts against out of state citizens or citizens from foreign
countries, federal courts can hear purely states cases based on dj if the citizenship of every
plaintiff is diferrent, from the citienship of every defendant and the plaitniff claim exceeeds
75000. With dj citizens of fiffernet states or countries can enter federal court with purely
state claims provided the plaintiff claim or the plaintiff’s related or unrelared claims in the
aggregate exceeds 75000. Example: if my banks, that is based in nj, wants to start an action
against me, (I am in NY), they could assert diverisyt jurisdiction in a mortage forclosure action
bring it in front of federal court, altough it is a state soley issue, and always it has to exceed
75000.

Miss madley = upper east side case, hot water, check cases! Boling water gets into her skin, lot
of damage in her skin, she is old. Could go to federal court = she is resident of manhattan, and
starbucks of seattle and delaware, so not common domicile + can enter federal courts if exceed
75000. Federal court are open if it exceed 7500 even if it is simple negligency case.

Rule. A party acquires citizenship (domicile) at birth which continues until a change of domicile
occurs. A change occurs if she takes up residence in the new domicile and intends to stay there
indefintively. Ex: I am moving to florida, I am from ny, I sold my house, in mariland I am involve
in a terrible accident, I want state court and the defendants wants to remove this case from
state court to federal court because of diveristuy jurisdiction. Where am I domicile? Florda or
ny? I am domicile in ny as I havent got to florida yet. Another example *ube bar february 2019:
a women takes up a lease in florida to love there, while she was there she was involved in an
accident, she went to hispotail in this state, when she went out of hospital, she however
returned to her home state, therefore she did not intend to stay in the second state forever,
she always wanted to go back home.

Rule. Where there is evidence indicating a party has more than one residence, courts look at
the totality of the evidences to determine that party citizenship wihcih is usually the center of
gravity of her life. Whre did she vote, where is bank account, where she belong to club, where
did she paid state income tax, where did she consider home.\

Members of the military. Rule. There is a reputable presumption that memebrs of the military
currently on order in another state or country will return to their home and they will remain
citizens of their home state.

Prisioners. Same as military. You don’t have choice where you are going, you keep your
domicile.

Rule. A plaintiff claim or claims must exceed 75000 dollars which can include amount for punite
damages, contractual attorneys fees, or contractual interests rates, but excluding recovery of
statutory intersts or court costs.

Page 10 of neumonic. Problem 1 and 2, ejemplo 2h 59 min.

A: yes, B: plaintiff from state b and defendant from state b, so no diveristy jurisdiction.
C: yes! Plantiff can be from same state and defemdats can be from same state but p and d
cannot be from same states!

Rule. A sole plaintiff may join as many related or unrelated smaller non federal claims against
the defendant if in the aggreate those claims exceeded 75000.

Rule. If I have a claim agasint difamation, I let you 10000 and you didn’t get them back to me
(breach of contract) + ypu hit me (battery)= if in the aggregate they exceed 75000 I can enter
federal courts even it these claims are purely state based + not related at all.

Rule. Federal courts used two reputable presumptions in dj: 1. If there exist any reasobanle
posibillitty that the p can recover more than 75000 dollars then the jurisdiction amount is
satisfied, and 2. The amount states on the face of the p complain is a good faith representation
of the amount in controversy. To rebut this presumption the d must proved to a legal certanity
that the p cannot exceed 75000 dollars. Page 11, problem 4. No! the p will not recover more
than 67000!

Rule. Neither a state nor the usa is a citizen of any state, thus their presence in a law suit
ordinarily destroys dj and dj cannot be the basis to enter a federal court or to remove a case
from state court to federal court on the basis of dj.

Important! bCan the defendant move on the basis of diverisyt jurisdiction if the other party is a
state? No!!

Rule. Even though dj exist, federal cours exercise a policy of abstention on 1 or 2. 1. Probate
matters: where a federal court will not direcrlt probate a will, or accept a state claim that will
interfre with the probate proceeding, 2. Divorce, allimony child custody or visitation or a claim
seeking to modify an existing matrimonial decree. An excetion is for child support arreas: whre
congress has given federal courts subject matter jurisdiction.

Citizenship. Rule. The citizenship of a legal representative per 1,2 or 3. 1. A Mentally challegne
person, 2. An infant, or 3. An incompent ?? dicent of state?? Is not considered! that
represenative is consider a citizenship of the person he or she is representing! does the
esecurot of a dec??? min 3 h 12 h, we don’t look at the party’s domicile, not the party
representing 1 2 or 3. For example; a lawyer defending an infant, we look at where the infant is
domicile, not where the lawyer is, for dj purposes.

Corportations. Rule. Foreign counrty corporations or us corporations have dual citizenships.

They are deemed citizens of the state where they are ‘at home’, 1. State or country of
incorporation, or 2, its principal place of business, where the corporation ‘nerve center’ is
located. Problem 5, page 11. It makes no difference where the suit is going to be brought! We
either have dj or not, that is all! We have people of state a in both sides, so not dj. The trial
needs to be tried in state court.

Rule. For dj purposes, federally charged banks, wells fargo, are considerate a citizen only of the
state of the bank’s main office listed in its artciles of incorporatiob. It is not not deemed a
citizen of every state where the banks maintain branches.

Rule. Artificial entiries, other than corporations,

1. LLC
2. General partnerships
3. Limited liabiloty partnership (see corporation lecture in a couple of weeeks)
4. Labour unions
5. Real estate invement trusts
6. Or other business trust intended to make a profit
= taken on the citizenships of all of its members! Here it becomes extremely difficult to
establish diversity, if the entity has member in lot of states, does requiring that entity to litigate
state claims in state courts!
In ny big law firms are llc = we look at the citizenship of all of its members, all partners! Super
difficult to establish diversity! So state court knows this cases!

Rule. A trust establish primarily for a state plaining purposes or as a gift + testimoy trust,
becomes a citizen of the trustee domicile, and not the citizenship of its beneficiaries.

Imigrants. Rule. federal statues refers to inmigrants as aliens.

Rule. An inmigrant is a citizen of another country, there is not provision in the us code for a
citizen of a foreign country to use dj to sue a citizen from a diffetnt foreign country in the us
court. However, a citizen of another country can sue or be sued by a us citizen and dj exist!

Rule. An inmigrant lawfully admited into the us, for permanent residence (green card) is
demmed a citizen of the state where she is domicilied. thus such an inmigrant in state x cannot
sue another state x citizen since there is not dversity of citizenship. But she can sue a citizen of
another state and dj exist. However, if one green card inmigrant of sttate x sues another green
card imigrant of state y, there is not dj, because dj requires at least one american citizen to be
involved in the case.

Acabe en 3 h 28 min, . sigue ahi!

Rule. ERIE outcome determinative test.

Rule. Where there exist a conflict between federal and state law in dj claims, as well as
supplemental jurisdiction claims, then federal court applies state SUBSTANTIVE LAW to ensure
that the results obtained in the federal court involving state claims, are substantially the same
that would have been achieved in the state court. Thus the federal court will apply, 1 2 or 3
1. A state pure comparative or contributory negligence law,
2. A state limitation on common law joint and several liability against Joint tort-feasors.
Tort essay. Essay number 3 or 4, ube February 2018. Assume the existence of joint and
several liability unchanged by statute.
3. We applied A state pre judgement interest rate, but the federal intertes rate is applied
to post judgemtn interests.

Rule. In diversity jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction cases, Federal courts genrally apply
the federal rules of civil procedure and federal rules of evidence but state procedarula law is
applied to SIP3 (mnemonic number 3, page 1).
S – STATUTE of limitations. We are going to applied the state statute of limitations to
determine whether the p claim is timely.
I – INCOMPETENCY of witnesses. Dead mean statute.
 P – PRIVILEGES, doctor patient privilege, for example.
P – PRESUMPTIONS and inferences
P – PROCEDURAL jurisdiction over a defendant vs subject matter jurisdiction over the d.

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION.

Rule. In any civil action, in which a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction, (CAT
or dj), the didtrict cout also has supplemental subject matter jurisditction over all related
state claims and missing parties that are so related to the pending claim, that they form part
of the same case or controversy. For ex: where a new third party d is implided into the
pending claim, or asserting a related cross claim by one named co defendant against
another named co defendant, or a compulsory counterclaim by the d against the p. see
lecture on pleadings.
Rule. In the name of judicial economy and common sense, supplemental jursidction gives a
federal judge discretion to hear the entire controversy with all of the involve parties and all
of the related claims, provided the federal court initially had subject matter jurisdiction over
the p original claim.

Rule. An ancillary state claim, Is a claim that on its own could not enter the federal court,
but it is so closely related to the pending claim in the federal court because it aroses out of
the same nucleos of facts, that support the p original claim. Thus, It is considerate art of the
same case or controversy pending in the federal court. For example; p sued d, for a federal
securities violation (CAT), p added a state defamation case that related to the same
securities transaction, since both claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence,
the federal court may exercise suppelemental jurisdiction and hear both claims.

Example. While visiting state y, p a passenger who is a state x citizen, in a vehicle operated
by O, a citizen of state y, p was injured when O car colladed his D car. D is also a citizen of
state y. p sued o and d, the two drivers, in state y federal court, asseting dj and seeking
400000 for personal injuries. D was not injured but d oncurr 30000 to repair his vehicle.
Query: can d cross claim against o for 30,000 properyty damage claim even though d and o
are from the same state, and the claim does not exceed 75000? Yes! Because d claim is
related to P claim against d, this supplemental jurisdiction allows d to assert the related
cross claim against O. it arise out of the same nucleous of facts!

Rule. Likewise if P sue just D, then by using supplemental jurisdiction, d could implied o for
contribution to share in P looses even though d and o are citizens from the same state.
Another state 3h 50 min.

Problem. P, a state a citizen, sued d, a state b citizen, in federal court based on dj. Thereafter p
implided x, a satte a citizen, into action. Query: can p amend the complain to add x as
defendat? No! because in a dj action, the original p may not assert a claim againt an impleded 3
party d, who is from the same state of the p. it is clear that p could not have originally brought
the suit in the fderal court by naming both d and x as co defendants, because citizens of state a
would have been on both sides of the litigation. Thus defeating complete diversity.

Suppelemental jurisdiction does not allow A PLANTIFF to circumvent the jurisdiction limitations
of dj. Here congress was concerned with the gamenship of p, where a p could simply name
those diverse citizens, satisfying dj, but later add claims against other defendants who have
been implided into the action by defendats.
Problem 8 page 12, do it!!!!

Rule. A federal court is not compelled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It is always

discretionary with the coyurt, and it may decline SJ of a state claim for COP, mnemonic number
6, page 2.