Jurisdiction is a core concept for Civil Procedure on the bar exam. The two frequently tested concepts to know are: Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction.
The Fundamental Distinction: What vs. Who
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is about whether the court havs proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
- Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) is about whether the court has proper jurisdiction over the parties to the action, especially the defendant.
Constitutional Limits
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal courts have limited jurisdiction under the constitution. They can only hear cases that clearly meet constitutional requirements.
- Personal Jurisdiction: Before a forum state can exercise jurisdiction over non-resident individuals, it must meet the constitutional requirement of sufficient minimum contacts. This protects individuals from being hauled into courts where they have no meaningful connection.
Two Ways to Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A federal court can only exercise SMJ if the case falls into one of two categories:
1. Federal Question: If the plaintiff’s claim “arises under” any one of the below federal law, the federal court has SMJ.
- US Constitution
- Federal Statutes
- Executive Actions
- Treaties
2. Diversity of Citizenship: The case must meet both of the below two requirements:
- Complete Diversity: No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant,
AND, - Amount in Controversy: The amount of damages must exceed $75,000, not including interests or costs.
Personal Jurisdiction: State Residents vs. Non-Residents
For State Residents: Jurisdiction can be established through any one of the three traditional bases:
- Consent (Express or Implied), OR
- Presence and Service: Defendant present and served within the forum state, OR
- Domicile: Defendant is domiciled in the forum state
For Non-Residents: The Two-Step Analysis
- Long-Arm Statute: The state must have a law allowing jurisdiction over the non-resident.
- Sufficient Minimum Contacts: This is a constitutional test. The defendant must have sufficient minimum contact with the forum state such that asserting PJ over him does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This constitutional test includes four key elements:
- Purposeful Availment: The defendant deliberately availed benefits and protections of forum state
- Foreseeability: It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s activities in the forum state could subject the defendant to being haled into court there.
- Relatedness of Claim: The claim arises from the defendant’s conduct or contact with the forum state.
- General Jurisdiction: Systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state such that the defendant is essentially “at home” there.
- Specific Jurisdiction: The claim arises from the defendant’s specific activity in the forum state.
- Fairness Factors Even if the above elements are met, the court must consider whether exercising jurisdiction is fair and does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.
- Convenience of forum to parties
- State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
- Other interests including interstate efficiency and plaintiff’s interest in the forum.
Conclusion
- SMJ focuses on the case; PJ focuses on the parties.
- Both have constitutional limits protecting different interests.
- SMJ requires either federal question OR diversity + amount to exceed 75K
- PJ uses traditional bases for state residents. For non-residents, PJ requires long-arm statute + “sufficient minimum contacts” test.