CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW 5011) IRAC
FORMATS COMPLETE GUIDE RATED A,BARRY
UNIVERSITY.
, CIVIL PROCEDURES FINAL EXAM
IRAC PREWRITING FORMAT – BASED ON WOOD – SYLLABUS
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
A defendant can be drawn into Federal court only if the subject matter of the claim is within its
jurisdiction. Typically, cases fall into one of two classes - federal question and diversity of
citizenship. Since there doesn't appear to be any federal law impacted here, we will proceed to
analyzing this case on diversity issues.
Diversity of citizenship cases require that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different
states and that the amount in controversy be over $75,000.
In the case of citizenship, the diversity must be complete. Citizenship for a person is determined
by domicile. Here, all facts point to P being a citizen of X since he lives there, presumably with
an intent to remain indefinitely. Citizenship for a corporation is determined by its state of
incorporation and its principal place of business. Since D is incorporated in Delaware but
operates only in Z, it has dual citizenship in both Delaware and Z. Since neither the plaintiff nor
the defendant are citizens of the same state, the first prong of diversity jurisdiction is met.
The amount in controversy requires that the plaintiff make a good faith allegation that the claim
exceeds $75,000. Here, P has aggregated three types of damages - none of which is over
$75,000. However, since the damages all relate to the same case and since there is only one
plaintiff and one defendant, P can aggregate his claims against D in order to meet the
jurisdictional limit. The good faith requirement merely means there is a legal basis for the
assessment of potential damages. If D is found liable for the tortious act, it is reasonable to
conclude that they may have to pay damages for all three of the claims since property damage,
personal damage and lost wages are likely results from a rocket that was not correctly designed.
Consequently, the defendant is subject to both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and may
be properly brought before the X District Court.
Remember, if he asks about PJ and SMJ, SMJ will depend on how the first motion is resolved
(like if there’s no PJ for one ∆ and he gets dropped out, there is no complete diversity)
*Also consider supplemental jurisdiction
Issue: Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over ?
Should the court grant ’s motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ?
The issue is whether the federal district court may properly assert subject matter
jurisdiction over .
Define:
Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the power of the court to hear a particular type of
case.
1
, General v. Limited Jurisdiction Unlike state courts, which are generally courts of
general jurisdiction, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only have
jurisdiction over the specific types of cases authorized by Article III of the Constitution
and by federal statute. The two most common types of federal jurisdiction are 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 federal question jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity jurisdiction.
Rule:
Federal question jurisdiction – 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Under federal question jurisdiction, federal courts have jurisdiction if an action “arises
under” the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States. In Motley, the Supreme
Court held that for an action to “arise under” federal law, an issue of federal law must be
a major component of the plaintiff’s claim. In the instant case, is asserting a
claim for , a state law claim.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction so they can only hear particular types of
cases (i.e. federal questions and diversity).
Federal Question:
Federal issue must be presented in the plaintiff’s well-plead complaint; federal defense is
not sufficient.
Federal questions are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which states, “The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.”
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule (Motley): A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of
the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1331 only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint is based upon federal law.
-must be necessary to π’s case; here the federal law was used as a defense because
the real issue was about breach of K
Federal Question Jurisdiction: “Arising Under” jurisdiction – The judicial power
shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the
United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.
’s (plaintiff) claim does not arise under federal law for purposes of §1331
(federal question jurisdiction) Section 1331 can be satisfied in one of two ways: (1) the plaintiff
asserts a federally created claim, or (2) the plaintiff asserts a state-created claim that includes an
essential federal ingredient. Neither of these standards is satisfied.
2
, ’s (plaintiff) claim is premised on ’s (defendant) failure to meet
its contractual obligation. That is a breach of contract claim and classically one that is created by
state law. Nothing in these facts suggests otherwise. Hence, the creation is not satisfied. Nor is
the essential federal ingredient test satisfied. Although (plaintiff) might argue that
this case involves (patent law, antitrust, civil rights – topic related to federal question in the
hypo) , the defendant will convincingly argue that nothing in ’s
(plaintiff) claim suggests any need to construe federal (patent law, antitrust, civil
rights – topic related to federal question in the hypo) law or to examine the
(patent law, antitrust, civil rights – topic related to federal question in the hypo)
in any manner. Quite likely the court will agree that the “federal issue” play not part in the
claim.
[Complete] Diversity of Citizenship:
Individuals – domiciled where they are present with intent to remain indefinitely:
Corporations – domiciled where incorporated AND where the principal place of business
is located.
Diversity of citizenship is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. According to § 1332(a) the
matter in controversy must exceed $75,000. In addition, the case must be between
“citizens of different States” § 1332(a)(1) or “citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign
state” § 1332(a)(2).
Analysis (Diversity):
Defendant might argue that there is a substantial issue of federal law in the
case – whether is enforceable because it violates federal laws.
Plaintiff might rely on Motley, pointing out that the issue of federal law is
being raised as a defense: it is not a basis for the Plaintiff’s cause of action.
a. Matter of controversy exceeds $75,000
b. Citizenship
If it is clear if any party is clearly a citizen of X.
[Party] would argue [other party] is a citizen of because .
3
FORMATS COMPLETE GUIDE RATED A,BARRY
UNIVERSITY.
, CIVIL PROCEDURES FINAL EXAM
IRAC PREWRITING FORMAT – BASED ON WOOD – SYLLABUS
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
A defendant can be drawn into Federal court only if the subject matter of the claim is within its
jurisdiction. Typically, cases fall into one of two classes - federal question and diversity of
citizenship. Since there doesn't appear to be any federal law impacted here, we will proceed to
analyzing this case on diversity issues.
Diversity of citizenship cases require that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different
states and that the amount in controversy be over $75,000.
In the case of citizenship, the diversity must be complete. Citizenship for a person is determined
by domicile. Here, all facts point to P being a citizen of X since he lives there, presumably with
an intent to remain indefinitely. Citizenship for a corporation is determined by its state of
incorporation and its principal place of business. Since D is incorporated in Delaware but
operates only in Z, it has dual citizenship in both Delaware and Z. Since neither the plaintiff nor
the defendant are citizens of the same state, the first prong of diversity jurisdiction is met.
The amount in controversy requires that the plaintiff make a good faith allegation that the claim
exceeds $75,000. Here, P has aggregated three types of damages - none of which is over
$75,000. However, since the damages all relate to the same case and since there is only one
plaintiff and one defendant, P can aggregate his claims against D in order to meet the
jurisdictional limit. The good faith requirement merely means there is a legal basis for the
assessment of potential damages. If D is found liable for the tortious act, it is reasonable to
conclude that they may have to pay damages for all three of the claims since property damage,
personal damage and lost wages are likely results from a rocket that was not correctly designed.
Consequently, the defendant is subject to both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and may
be properly brought before the X District Court.
Remember, if he asks about PJ and SMJ, SMJ will depend on how the first motion is resolved
(like if there’s no PJ for one ∆ and he gets dropped out, there is no complete diversity)
*Also consider supplemental jurisdiction
Issue: Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over ?
Should the court grant ’s motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ?
The issue is whether the federal district court may properly assert subject matter
jurisdiction over .
Define:
Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the power of the court to hear a particular type of
case.
1
, General v. Limited Jurisdiction Unlike state courts, which are generally courts of
general jurisdiction, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only have
jurisdiction over the specific types of cases authorized by Article III of the Constitution
and by federal statute. The two most common types of federal jurisdiction are 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 federal question jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity jurisdiction.
Rule:
Federal question jurisdiction – 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Under federal question jurisdiction, federal courts have jurisdiction if an action “arises
under” the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States. In Motley, the Supreme
Court held that for an action to “arise under” federal law, an issue of federal law must be
a major component of the plaintiff’s claim. In the instant case, is asserting a
claim for , a state law claim.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction so they can only hear particular types of
cases (i.e. federal questions and diversity).
Federal Question:
Federal issue must be presented in the plaintiff’s well-plead complaint; federal defense is
not sufficient.
Federal questions are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which states, “The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.”
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule (Motley): A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of
the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1331 only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint is based upon federal law.
-must be necessary to π’s case; here the federal law was used as a defense because
the real issue was about breach of K
Federal Question Jurisdiction: “Arising Under” jurisdiction – The judicial power
shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the
United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.
’s (plaintiff) claim does not arise under federal law for purposes of §1331
(federal question jurisdiction) Section 1331 can be satisfied in one of two ways: (1) the plaintiff
asserts a federally created claim, or (2) the plaintiff asserts a state-created claim that includes an
essential federal ingredient. Neither of these standards is satisfied.
2
, ’s (plaintiff) claim is premised on ’s (defendant) failure to meet
its contractual obligation. That is a breach of contract claim and classically one that is created by
state law. Nothing in these facts suggests otherwise. Hence, the creation is not satisfied. Nor is
the essential federal ingredient test satisfied. Although (plaintiff) might argue that
this case involves (patent law, antitrust, civil rights – topic related to federal question in the
hypo) , the defendant will convincingly argue that nothing in ’s
(plaintiff) claim suggests any need to construe federal (patent law, antitrust, civil
rights – topic related to federal question in the hypo) law or to examine the
(patent law, antitrust, civil rights – topic related to federal question in the hypo)
in any manner. Quite likely the court will agree that the “federal issue” play not part in the
claim.
[Complete] Diversity of Citizenship:
Individuals – domiciled where they are present with intent to remain indefinitely:
Corporations – domiciled where incorporated AND where the principal place of business
is located.
Diversity of citizenship is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. According to § 1332(a) the
matter in controversy must exceed $75,000. In addition, the case must be between
“citizens of different States” § 1332(a)(1) or “citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign
state” § 1332(a)(2).
Analysis (Diversity):
Defendant might argue that there is a substantial issue of federal law in the
case – whether is enforceable because it violates federal laws.
Plaintiff might rely on Motley, pointing out that the issue of federal law is
being raised as a defense: it is not a basis for the Plaintiff’s cause of action.
a. Matter of controversy exceeds $75,000
b. Citizenship
If it is clear if any party is clearly a citizen of X.
[Party] would argue [other party] is a citizen of because .
3
