Cardozo Law Review
Abstract
The local action rule required that certain actions concerning real property be adjudicated in the federal court in the state (and perhaps the district) containing the property. This rule had been apart of the law of the United States since the early days of the nation. In 2011, Congress eliminated the local action rule as a matter of venue. But some courts have held that the local action rule pertains to subject matter jurisdiction, not merely venue, and that it survived Congress's elimination of the venue aspect of the rule. This is wrong as to cases in federal court involving land in another district or another state but within the United States. These cases do not involve land outside the jurisdiction of a federal court. Older case law prohibiting "jurisdiction" in a federal court as to land in another state is best understood as stating a limit about the reach of the court's service of process, a legislatively defined limit on the court's territorial power. Under modern standards, many cases involving land within another state are within the territorial service of process limits of the federal court. Moreover, the 2011 Act at a minimum expresses congressional disapproval of the local action rule as a matter of policy. And the local action rule does create inefficient litigation. Federal courts should therefore put the local action rule completely to rest, handling occasional problems created by land being in another state by other procedural devices such as transfer or the tools available under Rule 19.
Keywords
Jurisdiction, Legal Practice and Procedure, Money, Real Property, Property--Personal and Real, Courts
Disciplines
Courts | Jurisdiction | Law
Recommended Citation
Jeffrey L. Rensberger,
Jefferson's Ghost: The Local Action Rule in Federal Courts,
44
Cardozo L. Rev.
2423
(2023).
Available at:
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol44/iss6/6
