(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 739
- Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm
Does an embedded federal question need to explicitly brought up in the complaint? Or can the Grable analysis be applied to a Mottley type situation? Basically I'm wondering if Grable is an exception to Mottley or whether Mottley is still a requirement for embedded questions.
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:36 am
Grable is not an exception to Mottley. Mottley established the well-pleaded complaint doctrine. Grable, on the otherhand, was known for the 4 factor test in determining Federal Question Jurisdiction where a federal issue is embedded in a state law claim. The court will still only look at the face of the P's complaint--not the D's answer--to determine if there is a federal question. There are of course certain exceptions to this rule, where certain federal law pre-empts the state law claim(i.e. ERISA). Also, under the artful-pleading doctrine, a P cannot avoid removal by declining to plead necessary federal questions. The court will be allowed in certain instances to look beyond the face of the P's complaint to determine whether the P has alleged a federal question.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: KissMyAxe and 9 guests