Jurisdiction(Subject Matter, Personal)

Subject-matter jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction, in civil procedure, is a legal term that signifies the types of claims or disputes over which a particular court has jurisdiction, or the power to render a decision. State courts In the United States, many state court systems are divided into divisions such as criminal, civil, family, and probate. A court within any one of those divisions would lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case regarding matters assigned to another division. Most U.S. state court systems, however, include a superior court that has "general" jurisdiction; that is, it is competent to hear any case over which no other tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. Federal courts The term is most broadly developed at the level of the United States federal courts, which derive their jurisdiction exclusively from statutes and therefore cannot decide any case that is not within their assigned jurisdiction. There, litigants must show that they fall into one of two broad categories of subject matter jurisdiction: diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal court may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction upon motion of a party or sua sponte, upon its own initiative. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Diversity jurisdiction Diversity jurisdiction is a term used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are "diverse," meaning that they come from different states. Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the power to permit federal courts to hear such cases. The provision was included because the writers of the Constitution were concerned that, where a case was brought in one state involving parties from both that state and another, the state court might be biased towards the party from its own state. Congress first exercised that power and granted federal trial district courts diversity jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Diversity jurisdiction is presently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal question jurisdiction Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful. The Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until 1885. The statute is now found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which is based on the parties coming from different states, federal question jurisdiction no longer has any amount in controversy requirement - Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in 1976, and in all federal question cases in 1980. Therefore, a federal court can hear a federal question case even if no money is sought by the plaintiff. To meet the requirement of a case "arising under" federal law, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint. There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a "federal question" in these circumstances, but it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute. This "well-pleaded complaint" rule has been criticized by legal scholars, but Congress has so far chosen not to change the law, although the Supreme Court has made clear it is free to do so. Sua sponte Sua sponte, Latin for "of one's own accord," is a legal term that means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge, taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. One situation when a party might encourage a judge to move sua sponte is when that party is preserving a special appearance (usually to challenge jurisdiction), and therefore cannot make motions on its own behalf without making a general appearance. Common reasons for an unprompted sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest, even if all parties disagree. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to decide a case. I.e., to render a decision that will be recognized and enforced by authorities and other courts. Jurisdiction is of two types: Subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties. A court must have both types of jurisdiction before it has jurisdiction to decide the case. Jurisdiction over the parties (personal jurisdiction) relates to the question of whether someone from another state, Alaska, New York, or Nevada can be forced to come to the state where the lawsuit was filed (the "forum state") e.g. California, to defend against the lawsuit. The existence of personal jurisdiction depends upon a sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum state to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum. Jurisdiction Over Persons or Things In personam, (or personal jurisdiction) is the power of a court to adjudicate the personal legal rights of parties properly brought before it. Requires that the court not only have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, but also that it have jurisdiction over each party to the action. Due process of law requires appearance or service of process (notice of pendency of the lawsuit) before the defendant can be personally bound by any judgment. A person is subject to in personam jurisdiction on any of the following theories: (1) Presence, i.e., being served with a copy of the summons and complaint while physically present in the forum jurisdiction. The physical presence of a defendant in the forum is a sufficient basis for acquiring jurisdiction over him, no matter how brief his stay might be. (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877). ) (2) Domicile (residence) alone is a basis for exercising jurisdiction over an absent domiciliary. (Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940).) I.e., a person may always be sued for all claims, regardless of where they arise, in their state of permanent residence or in the case of a corporation, the state in which it is incorporated. (3) Consent to personal jurisdiction. A defendant who has not been personally served in the jurisdiction can nevertheless voluntarily appear and submit himself to jurisdiction. In such cases defendant is said to have "consented" to jurisdiction. Can consent be obtained in advance of any lawsuit being filed? Can consent be implied? Hess v. Palowski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091 (1927) says yes. A state can legislate that a nonresident motorist using its highways be deemed to have appointed a local official as his agent to receive service of process in any action growing out of the use of the vehicle within the state. However, the state must provide actual notice to the nonresident defendant. (4) Minimum Contacts. Having sufficient dealings or affiliations with the forum jurisdiction which make it reasonable to require the defendant to defend a lawsuit brought in the forum state. (Int'l Shoe) Hence, a defendant who has never set foot in California may nevertheless be subject to valid personal jurisdiction so as to be compelled to defend a lawsuit in California provided that he has minimum contacts with the forum state such that compelling him to appear and defend in the forum does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).) I.e., the due process clause does not permit a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over an individual or corporation with which the state has no contacts, ties or relations. Minimum Contacts - The Four Principles of International Shoe 1) Jurisdiction is permissible when the defendant's activity in the forum is continuous and systematic and the cause of action is related to that activity. 2) Sporadic or casual activity of the defendant in the forum does not justify assertion of jurisdiction on a cause of action unrelated to that forum activity. 3) A court may assert jurisdiction over a defendant whose continuous activities in the forum are unrelated to the cause of action sued upon when the defendant's contacts are sufficiently substantial and of such a nature as to make the state's assertion of jurisdiction reasonable. ("general jurisdiction") 4) Even a defendant whose activity in the forum is sporadic, or consists only of a single act, may be subject to the jurisdiction of the forum's courts when the cause of action arises out of that activity or act. ["specific jurisdiction"] (Friedenthal § 3.10)