Also known as: civil causes of action · civil action
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A legal claim that authorizes a plaintiff to seek judicial relief such as damages or an injunction in a civil proceeding. The claim arises when the plaintiff alleges a violation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution even if the governing provision supplies no express remedy.
Cynthia Cortez alleges that federal agents searched her business premises without a warrant and seized servers. She files a complaint in federal district court asserting a right to damages directly under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The court recognizes federal question jurisdiction because the complaint pleads a violation of federal constitutional rights even though those amendments contain no express damages provision.
Coastal Shipping sues Citadel Security in federal court under a federal maritime statute for cargo loss. Coastal adds a state-law conversion claim arising from the same shipment. The district court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the conversion claim because it forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal civil cause of action.
Cameron Cruz commences a federal civil action against Cardinal Insurance by filing a complaint. A process server authorized under the civil rules serves the summons on the insurer. The service is valid because the rules permit any person authorized to serve a summons in a federal civil action to perform that task.
Cypress Technologies sues Coastal Shipping in the district where Coastal maintains its principal place of business. Coastal is subject to personal jurisdiction in that district for the contract dispute. Venue is proper because an entity resides for venue purposes in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the civil cause of action.
Colin Chambers files a state-court contract action against Cardinal Insurance. Cardinal files a notice of removal in the federal district court for the district where the state action is pending. The notice contains a short statement of diversity jurisdiction and attaches copies of all process and pleadings served on Cardinal in the civil cause of action.
Christian Coleman purchases shares in Blue Chip Stamps after reading a prospectus. He later sues alleging the prospectus contained material misstatements in violation of Rule 10b-5. The court limits the private cause of action to purchasers who actually bought or sold securities in reliance on the misstatements.
In 1963 the United States filed a civil antitrust action against Old Blue Chip Stamp Co., a company providing trading stamps to retailers, and nine retailers who owned 90 percent of its shares. In 1967 the action was terminated by entry of a consent decree. The decree contemplated a plan of reorganization whereby Old Blue Chip would merge into a newly formed corporation, Blue Chip Stamps. The holdings of the majority shareholders would be reduced. The new company would offer a substantial number of its shares of common stock to retailers who had used the stamp service in the past but were not shareholders. The offering was to be proportional to past stamp usage and packaged in units consisting of common stock and debentures. The reorganization plan was carried out. The offering was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933. A prospectus was distributed to all offerees as required by section 5 of that Act. Somewhat more than 50 percent of the offered units were actually purchased. In 1970, two years after the offering, Manor Drug Stores, a former user of the stamp service and therefore an offeree of the 1968 offering, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Old and New Blue Chip, eight of the nine majority shareholders of Old Blue Chip, and the directors of New Blue Chip. The complaint alleged that the prospectus prepared and distributed in connection with the offering was materially misleading in its overly pessimistic appraisal of Blue Chip's status and future prospects. It further alleged that Blue Chip intentionally made the prospectus overly pessimistic. This was done to discourage the offerees from accepting the offer. The goal was so that the rejected shares might later be offered to the public at a higher price. Class members because of and in reliance on the false and misleading prospectus failed to purchase the offered units. The complaint sought on behalf of the alleged class some $21,400,000 in damages representing the lost opportunity to purchase the units, the right to purchase the previously rejected units at the 1968 price, and some $25,000,000 in exemplary damages. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a divided panel reversed the district court. After the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
A plaintiff may bring a civil cause of action directly under the Constitution or federal law even without an express remedial provision. Federal question jurisdiction exists when the complaint alleges a right to relief under federal law. Courts may recognize implied causes of action for violations of constitutional rights.
Supporting sources
…invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action and that it is common law only, though supplemented by statute. See, e. g., Alabama Code, Tit. 7, §§ 908-917. The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever…
…proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by this title or rules and regulations thereunder, or to enjoin any violation of such title or rules and regulations, may be brought in any such…
…litigation is recounted in Nixon v. Fitzgerald , ante , p. 731. Butterfield was named as a defendant in the initial civil action filed by Fitzgerald in 1974. Harlow was named for the first time in respondent's second amended complaint of July 5, 1978. : The first of these statutes, 5 U. S. C. § 7211 (1976…
…dealt at some length with the required contents of registration statements and prospectuses, and expressly provided for private civil causes of action. Section 11 (a) gave a right of action by reason of a false registration statement to "any person acquiring" the security, and § 12 of that Act gave a right to sue the seller of a security…
…received services is identifiable. I recognize that unauthorized release of confidential information may make me subject to a civil action under provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Signed [¶] (f) To the courts, as necessary to the administration of justice. [¶] (g) To governmental law enforcement…
Yes. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. That filing satisfies the procedural requirement for bringing the claim.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims that form part of the same case or controversy. The claims must share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Supporting sources
An entity resides in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action. For a plaintiff entity residence is limited to the district of its principal place of business.
Supporting sources
The notice must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal and be accompanied by copies of all process pleadings and orders served on the defendant. It must be filed in the district court for the district where the state action is pending.
Supporting sources