Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Disagreeing with Hardy v. America's Best Home Loans (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 795 and Gray v. La Salle Bank (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1215, this split decision holds that Fed. R. Civ. P. 41's two dismissal rule bars later litigation in state court even if limited to state law claims so long as the second dismissal was in federal court on a… Read More

The district court erred in remanded this suit to state court after defendant removed it under 28 USC 1442, the federal officer removal statute.  To invoke federal jurisdiction under that section, the defendant must show (a) it is a “person” within the meaning of the statute; (b) there is a causal nexus between its actions, taken pursuant to a federal… Read More

28 USC 1367(d) provides that when a case is brought within the federal courts' original jurisdiction and state law claims are also asserted, invoking the federal court's supplemental jurisdiction, any applicable statute of limitations is tolled for a period of 30 days following dismissal of the state law claims if the federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them.  This… Read More

The probate exception to federal court jurisdiction applies only  to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.”  Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252… Read More

(Under FRCivP 4(k)(2), a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant on a federal claim if the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any state's courts and exercising jurisdiction over the defendant comports with due process considering his contacts with the US as a whole.  Here, the district court could properly exercise jurisdiction over the foreign… Read More

Following City of Oakland v. BP, PLC (9th Cir. 2020) 969 F.3d 895, this decision holds that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over San Mateo's public nuisance suit against energy companies for promoting use of their fossil fuels thereby causing global warming and rising sea levels that threatened harm to county property.  The county's state law claims do… Read More

This split decision holds that when the case is in federal court under their federal question jurisdiction, federal common law, rather than the law of the state or foreign country in which the contract was entered into, governs threshold questions of arbitrability, such as whether a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement may enforce it through equitable estoppel.  Under federal common… Read More

A party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim must satisfy both a location test and a connection test.  To satisfy the location test, the tort must occur on navigable waters, which means waters that by themselves or through connection with others form a continued highway over which commerce with other states or countries may be carried… Read More

The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not confer federal jurisdiction over a complaint alleging state law securities claims within the exception to SLUSA's general prohibition of state law securities class actions, except for the limited purpose of determining whether a putative class action is banned by SLUSA's general preclusion of such suits.  Read More