The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit litigants to make changes to the substance of their initial pleading. Those changes raise a constitutional question when the initial pleading fails to establish a constitutionally required element of a federal court’s jurisdiction: May the court permit the change, or must it dismiss the complaint as a nullity? The federal circuit courts are split in their answers to that question, with some circuits even issuing internally inconsistent holdings under different procedural rules. But regardless of the procedural rule at issue, the answer should be the same: Article III’s jurisdictional requirements do not prohibit procedural moves from curing a jurisdictional defect. Taking that position, this Note contributes the only thorough analysis of the so-called “nullity doctrine” and its vices and, in the process, clarifies the relationship between Article III’s jurisdictional requirements and the procedural rules that effectuate them.
Introduction
Federal court litigants routinely change the substance of their initial pleading, often through amendment, supplementation, or party substitution. But otherwise routine changes raise a constitutional question when the original complaint fails to establish a constitutionally required element of the court’s jurisdiction. In those cases, courts must determine if the complaint must be dismissed without further action, or if the jurisdictional defect can be remedied. Some courts permit the jurisdictional defect to be remedied through an applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Other courts hold that the complaint is a legal nullity that must be dismissed—a position often referred to as the “nullity doctrine.”1 1.See, e.g., 13A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3531 n.61 (3d ed. Supp. 2022) (using the term “‘nullity’ doctrine”); Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 991 F.3d 370, 386 (2d Cir. 2021) (rejecting the “so-called ‘nullity doctrine’”).Show More Though at first glance the nullity doctrine has some formalistic appeal, a closer look reveals the nullity doctrine as an overly technical and mistaken application of Article III’s jurisdictional requirements—most commonly that of Article III standing.2 2.Two comments on the scope of this Note. First, though the nullity doctrine appears in both constitutional and statutory jurisdictional contexts, this Note deals only with constitutionally defective allegations of jurisdiction and uses the term “nullity doctrine” only in that context. However, this Note’s rejection of the nullity doctrine’s constitutional applications applies with equal force to statutory applications. Second, though the term “standing” has both constitutional and sub-constitutional applications, this Note will use the term exclusively in reference to Article III standing.Show More This Note is the first significant contribution to the academic literature to take that closer look.3 3.The Boston College Law Review published a brief commentary on a nullity doctrine case in 2020. Rory T. Skowron, Comment, Whether Events After the Filing of an Initial Complaint May Cure an Article III Standing Defect: The D.C. Circuit’s Approach, 61 B.C. L. Rev. E. Supp. II.-230 (2020). This Note takes a significantly more comprehensive approach to both the nullity doctrine’s manifestations under multiple federal rules and the nullity doctrine’s interaction with Article III.Show More
The reasoning in support of the nullity doctrine is straightforward. The plaintiff who filed suit failed to plead a constitutionally required element of the court’s jurisdiction. As a result, the court lacks jurisdiction. Because the court lacks jurisdiction, the court cannot entertain a motion to amend or supplement the complaint or to substitute a proper party. And because the jurisdictional defect is constitutional, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot operate to retroactively cure the defect, even though some of those rules permit pleading changes to relate back to the time the suit was filed. Accordingly, permitting amendment or supplementation of the complaint or a party substitution would amount to an expansion of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which on their own terms the federal rules cannot do.4 4.Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 (“These rules do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts . . . .”).Show More Thus, there is no suit at all—the complaint is a nullity that must be dismissed, and the plaintiff must refile.
Despite that syllogism’s intuitive appeal, there are powerful counterarguments.5 5.This Note does not argue that the nullity doctrine is incorrect because of its formalism, but rather that Article III does not require the nullity doctrine’s formalist approach. This Note takes no position on the utility of formalism as such.Show More The nullity doctrine operates to bar a suit that would ultimately be proper (if there is no proper suit then the dismissal is unremarkable). That renders the nullity doctrine an empty procedural formality. Further, Article III does not regulate the minutiae of federal court procedure—the federal rules do that. And there is no constitutionally prescribed moment that a lawsuit is initiated—where a federal rule permits an amendment, supplementation, or party substitution to relate back to the time of filing, Article III’s jurisdictional requirements do not bar relation back. Regardless, pleading changes do not appear to be an exercise of “judicial Power” within Article III’s meaning, and instead look more like the incidental authority federal courts use to stay executions, award costs, and vacate lower court judgments even where they lack (or are unsure of) jurisdiction. And the nullity doctrine’s principal sub-constitutional support—the judge-made time of filing rule—does not prevent jurisdictional cures to relate back to the time the suit was filed. In fact, though the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the nullity doctrine, Supreme Court dicta expressly reject it and many of the Court’s related cases weigh heavily against it.
The federal circuit courts are split on how to treat facially deficient complaints and the procedural rules that could operate to cure the deficiency, most commonly Rule 15’s amendment and supplementation provisions6 6.Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) (“[a]n amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . the amendment changes the party” and other conditions obtain); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (court may permit a supplemental pleading even where the original pleading “is defective in stating a claim or defense”).Show More and Rule 17(a)(3)’s party substitution provision.7 7.Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3) (“The court may not dismiss an action for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest until, after an objection, a reasonable time has been allowed for the real party in interest to . . . be substituted into the action.”).Show More The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split with respect to Rule 17(a)(3)—the Sixth and Ninth Circuits adopting the nullity doctrine and the Second Circuit rejecting it. The Seventh, Ninth, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits are split with respect to Rule 15—the Federal Circuit adopting the nullity doctrine under Rule 15(a) and the other circuits rejecting it under several of Rule 15’s other provisions. Complicating matters, several circuit courts have issued contradictory holdings with respect to different procedural rules. Despite the Federal Circuit’s adoption of the nullity doctrine under Rule 15(a), the same court rejected the nullity doctrine under Rule 15(d). And despite the Ninth Circuit’s adoption of the nullity doctrine under Rule 17(a)(3), the Ninth Circuit rejected the nullity doctrine under Rules 15(b) and 15(d).
Those courts and panels that have rejected the nullity doctrine have the better position. The nullity doctrine’s central premise—that Article III controls what is ultimately a procedural issue—is incorrect. Article III controls the types of suits that a federal court has the power to resolve, not the methods by which those suits come before a court. We have a lengthy body of procedural rules precisely because Article III does not regulate the types of procedural intricacies implicated by the nullity doctrine.
Despite some courts’ differential treatment of the nullity doctrine under different procedural rules, the nullity doctrine’s claimed constitutional justifications would apply with equal force to any procedural rule that permits a change to a pleading. And because those constitutional justifications do not stand up to scrutiny, the nullity doctrine should be rejected across the board, regardless of the procedural rule at issue. The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in an appropriate case to clarify the relationship between Article III and the procedural rules that operate in its trial courts, and to resolve this trans- and intra-circuit split, which implicates everyday procedural moves under some of the most commonly invoked federal rules.
This Note will make that argument in several parts. Part I will describe in greater depth the circuit split and the varying procedural rules and factual scenarios at issue in the nullity doctrine cases. Part II will examine the nullity doctrine’s claimed constitutional underpinnings and will argue that the pleading changes that the nullity doctrine precludes are not exercises of “judicial Power” within Article III’s meaning. Part III will argue that the time of filing rule does not compel adoption of the nullity doctrine, and in the process will detail Supreme Court decisions that weigh against the nullity doctrine, including Supreme Court dicta expressly rejecting it. Part III will be followed by a brief conclusion.
-
See, e.g., 13A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3531 n.61 (3d ed. Supp. 2022) (using the term “‘nullity’ doctrine”); Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 991 F.3d 370, 386 (2d Cir. 2021) (rejecting the “so-called ‘nullity doctrine’”). ↑
-
Two comments on the scope of this Note. First, though the nullity doctrine appears in both constitutional and statutory jurisdictional contexts, this Note deals only with constitutionally defective allegations of jurisdiction and uses the term “nullity doctrine” only in that context. However, this Note’s rejection of the nullity doctrine’s constitutional applications applies with equal force to statutory applications. Second, though the term “standing” has both constitutional and sub-constitutional applications, this Note will use the term exclusively in reference to Article III standing. ↑
-
The Boston College Law Review published a brief commentary on a nullity doctrine case in 2020. Rory T. Skowron, Comment, Whether Events After the Filing of an Initial Complaint May Cure an Article III Standing Defect: The D.C. Circuit’s Approach, 61 B.C. L. Rev. E. Supp. II.-230 (2020). This Note takes a significantly more comprehensive approach to both the nullity doctrine’s manifestations under multiple federal rules and the nullity doctrine’s interaction with Article III. ↑
-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 (“These rules do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts . . . .”). ↑
-
This Note does not argue that the nullity doctrine is incorrect because of its formalism, but rather that Article III does not require the nullity doctrine’s formalist approach. This Note takes no position on the utility of formalism as such. ↑
-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) (“[a]n amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . the amendment changes the party” and other conditions obtain); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (court may permit a supplemental pleading even where the original pleading “is defective in stating a claim or defense”). ↑
-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3) (“The court may not dismiss an action for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest until, after an objection, a reasonable time has been allowed for the real party in interest to . . . be substituted into the action.”). ↑