2.3 Mechanics of Establishing or Challenging Jurisdiction
Library | Federal Civil Practice in Virginia (Virginia CLE) (2018 Ed.) |
2.3 MECHANICS OF ESTABLISHING OR CHALLENGING JURISDICTION
2.301 Burden of Proof. The plaintiff always bears the burden of establishing a federal court's jurisdiction over a case. 76
A defendant removing a case to federal court from state court, however, has the burden of establishing all of the matters required by the removal statutes, in its notice of removal. 77
2.302 Basis for Jurisdiction Must Appear on Face of Complaint. Under the "well pleaded complaint rule," the basis for federal jurisdiction over a case must appear from the face of the complaint. 78 "If a party challenges the district court's jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the basis that the pleadings are insufficient to support jurisdiction, then the analysis proceeds viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, just as under Rule 12(b)(6)." 79
A plaintiff cannot, however, avoid federal court simply by omitting to plead a necessary federal question in the complaint. The "artful pleading" exception to the "well-pleaded complaint rule" prevents such artificial efforts to circumvent federal jurisdiction. 80
Federal courts must be vigilant in assuring the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and questions concerning its existence can be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court because federal courts are
[Page 76]
courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only those powers conferred by the Constitution or by statute. 81
The essential elements of diversity jurisdiction must be alleged in the complaint or be evident from the record. 82
A recent United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia case considered both federal question and diversity jurisdiction where the pro se plaintiff failed to allege a basis for either in her complaint but attempted to invoke both in her civil cover sheet. The case was dismissed for lack of either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 83
In pleading facts, parties should avoid using "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. . . ." 84
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 85 the Supreme Court overruled the holding of Conley v. Gibson, 86 that complaints should only be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when "no set of facts" could be envisaged to entitle the plaintiff to relief. The Court noted that,
after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation has earned its retirement. The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. 87
The Fourth Circuit initially interpreted Twombly as merely reaffirming the liberal pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which
[Page 77]
demand only a "short and plain" statement of the claim. 88 More recent cases, however, make it clear that Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal 89 "require that complaints in civil actions be alleged with greater specificity than previously was required." 90 Analysis of the factual allegations in a complaint is a "context-specific task," and the plaintiff's pleading must set out sufficient facts to push the claim asserted "across the line from conceivable to plausible." 91
Application of Twombly-Iqbal has produced particularly searching scrutiny of the allegations made in a complaint, and factual allegations found to be nothing more than "speculation" have resulted in the dismissal of claims at the earliest stage. 92
In a First Amendment case, the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiff's "factual allegations in the complaint, viewed as a whole, have 'facial plausibility' that 'allow[ ] the court to draw reasonable inference that the defendant[s] [are] liable for misconduct alleged.'" 93
The Seventh Circuit has reiterated that Twombly should be neither "over-read nor . . . under-read. . . ." 94 The court noted that Twombly had made it clear that its holding was not intended to "supplant the basic notice-pleading standard." 95 Depending on the complexity of the case, however, a "fuller set of factual allegations may be necessary to show that relief is plausible" in, for example, antitrust or RICO cases. 96
[Page 78]
Other decisions stressing that Twombly did not change the pleading rules in federal court are summarized in Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc. 97 Even though Twombly has been interpreted as not imposing any heightened fact pleading requirement, recent cases reaffirm that "we have never accepted 'legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations' . . . because a complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims." 98
The Twombly-Iqbal standard has also been held to apply to the assertion of affirmative defenses, and bare-bones affirmative defenses that cite no supporting facts have been stricken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 99 There is no unanimity in this area in the Fourth Circuit. 100 However, at least one judge in the Eastern District of Virginia has aligned himself with the minority view that the pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal do not apply to affirmative defenses. 101
General allegations of malice have been found to be insufficient to state a claim for punitive damages under Twombly-Iqbal. 102
2.303 Court Decides Whether It Has Jurisdiction; Discovery; Hearing Evidence. A federal court has jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the case. 103
When subject matter jurisdictional defects appear, federal courts must raise these issues sua sponte because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Hence, after removal, where a jurisdictional defect appeared in
[Page 79]
the pleadings, one federal court has required a defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court. 104
When a federal court's jurisdiction is challenged, the court typically allows the parties to conduct limited discovery on the jurisdictional facts. 105 Where jurisdiction is...
To continue reading
Request your trial