PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Jurisdiction & Venue
......Subject Matter Jurisdiction
.........Generally
 23 Cards On This Topic:
  • Subject matter jurisdiction discussed.
  • Limited civil case is one in which amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000.
  • Limited civil cases.
  • Action other than limited civil case may be called unlimited civil case.
  • Court in diversity case may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims not meeting minimum amount-in-controversy, if claims are part of same case or controversy as claims which met amount in controversy.
  • 9th Cir. lacked appellate jurisdiction over class action remanded to state court by dist. ct. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • 28 U.S.C. §1447 (d), providing order remanding case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is unreviewable on appeal, barred 9th Cir. review.
  • Court of Appeal erred in concluding civil action against public utility barred by PUC 1759 because of possibility of conflicting rulings with parallel PUC proceeding; court's SMJ not preempted by PUC.
  • Under principles of judicial restraint and comity, TRO enjoining party to Cal. lawsuit from taking action in Minn. proceeding involving same dispute was improper.
  • While court improperly issued TRO enjoining D from proceeding in Minn. action, Minn. action did not divest Cal. of jurisdiction; P2 free to litigate Cal. action unless & until D shows that any Minn. judgment is binding.
  • Dismissal for lack of SMJ reversed where case presented only issues concerning parties' K relationship and tort claims; U.S.'s interests not implicated and federal courts' jurisdiction was not exclusive.
  • Dow Canada lacked minimum contacts with CA to subject it to CA's jurisdiction where it did not purposefully direct its activities toward CA residents, create substantial connection with CA nor deliberately engage in significant activities here.
  • Trial court erred in finding it lacked SMJ over qui tam cross-complaint where there was no public disclosure of the information critical to cross-C’s claims.
  • Trial court correctly ruled legal malpractice action should be adjudicated in federal court because of the substantial patent questions presented in the elements of causation and damages.
  • Dismissal required where complaint arose under U.S. patent laws, was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts under 28 U.S.C. §1338, and trial ct. therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
  • Superior court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over discovery disputes in UM arbitration.
  • PUC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether City or Pac Bell pays for relocation of Pac Bell's overhead facilities to underground—no concurrent court jurisdiction.
  • Sua sponte order dismissing Ps' interpleader reversed as judge erroneously ruled Ds' private contractual agreement to arbitrate dispute before religious tribunal in Israel deprived superior court of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • As claims alleged in Complaint presented substantial issues of patent law, invoking exclusive federal jurisdiction, trial ct. lacked SMJ, and demurrer properly sustained.
  • State court without jurisdiction to hear malicious prosecution and abuse of process case based on federal bankruptcy proceeding.
  • State court hearing breach of contract case cannot be divested of subject matter jurisdiction just because D raises federal defense.
  • Parties to arbitration cannot create right to appellate review by stip where subject matter jurisdiction does not otherwise exist.
  • Lower federal courts have no jurisdiction to review Cal. Supreme Ct.'s decision on admission to bar, but may hear attack on admission rules as Supreme Ct. promulgates in nonjudicial capacity.


    •