2.5 Federal Question Jurisdiction
Library | Federal Civil Practice in Virginia (Virginia CLE) (2018 Ed.) |
2.5 FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
2.501 Governing Statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that the district courts have original jurisdiction of "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
2.502 The "Laws of the United States" Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The kinds of federal law that can give rise to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 include:
A. Constitutional Questions.
1. | A challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute. 263 | ||
2. | A claim that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. 264 |
B. Federal Statutes. 265
C. Acts and Regulations of Federal Administrative Agencies. 266 For a case dismissing claims related to the federal Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff only referred to HAMP in the complaint and did not rely on HAMP for its state-law claims, see Mosley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 267
D. Federal Common Law. Although limited in scope, federal common law can provide the basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 268
Generally, federal common law falls into one of two categories: (i) areas in which a uniform federal rule promotes uniquely federal interests;
[Page 103]
or (ii) areas in which Congress has given federal courts the power to develop substantive law. 269
2.503 Hybrid State and Federal Law Claims. A case may arise under federal law, for the purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction, when the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law. 270 The federal issue, however, must be "(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress." 271 Federal jurisdiction will lie only if a case meets all four requirements. 272 If a plaintiff can support his state law claim with even one theory that does not call for an interpretation of federal law, however, his claim does not "arise under" federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. 273
2.504 Declaratory Judgment Act.
A. In General. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), 274 a district court, in a case or controversy otherwise within its jurisdiction, "may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 275 "The Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the [DJA] as 'an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.'" 276
[Page 104]
The DJA confers on federal courts "unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants." 277 In a DJA proceeding, the normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration. 278
B. Case-or-Controversy Requirement. The United States Supreme Court has noted that there is a certain vagueness in the jurisprudence drawing lines between those declaratory judgment actions that satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and those that do not. 279 The Supreme Court's case law has required that the dispute be "definite and concrete," and that it be "real and substantial." 280 The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not required to refuse to make royalty payments under its license agreement in order to seek relief under the patent statutes.
We do not require a plaintiff to expose himself to liability before bringing suit to challenge the basis for the threat—for example, the constitutionality of the law threatened to be enforced. The plaintiff's own action (or inaction), in failing to violate the law eliminates the imminent threat of prosecution, but nonetheless does not eliminate Article III jurisdiction. 281
Indeed, the dilemma imposed by putting a challenger to the choice between abandoning its rights or risking prosecution is "a dilemma that it was the very purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act to ameliorate." 282
The DJA does not represent an exception to article III's general requirement of a justiciable case or controversy. 283 The test for determining whether a case or controversy exists under the DJA, in trademark cases, is whether the claimant has a real and reasonable apprehension of litigation
[Page 105]
and whether the claimant has engaged in a course of conduct that has brought it into adversarial conflict with the defendant. 284
C. Independent Basis for Federal Jurisdiction. A party must have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction apart from the DJA. 285
D. Pending Parallel State Action. To determine whether to proceed with a federal DJA proceeding when a parallel state action is pending, courts focus on four factors: (i) whether the state has a strong interest in having the issues decided in its courts; (ii) whether the state courts could resolve the issues more efficiently than the federal courts; (iii) whether the presence of overlapping issues of fact or law might create unnecessary entanglement between the state and federal courts; and (iv) whether the federal action is merely the product of forum shopping. 286
E. Simultaneous DJA Proceedings in Different Federal Courts. Where there are two competing DJA proceedings simultaneously pending in two different federal courts, generally the "first to file rule" applies, and the first-filed action is "entitled to priority." 287
The "first to file rule" is recognized in the Fourth Circuit. There is "a strong presumption of priority [that] attaches to the first filed action where the law suits are the same or have overlapping claims." 288 The purpose of this rule is...
To continue reading
Request your trial