CIVIL PROCEDURE RUESCHER FALL 2016
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Diversity §1332
Diversity of Citizenship
Complete diversity: every π must be different from every ∆ (§1332)
Strawberry v. Curtis
Exception: minimal diversity, the constitution only requires that every party be diverse from the other side
Domicile:
Person: where you born is your domicile
How to change domicile:
Move: must actually move
Intent: must form the intent to stay
Mas v. Perry
Citizenship of Entities:
§1332(c)(1): a corporation is a citizen- of the state where incorporated and where it’s PPB is
if incorporated in more than one state then citizens of both
non-Incorporated businesses:
LLC’s, Partnerships, etc
Use it’s citizenship of all it’s members
Diversity of citizenship with be determined the day the action begins
It’s possible to be a citizen of the US but not a citizen of a state
Amount in Controversy
Must exceed 75k
Whatever π claims will govern, unless clear to a legal certainty that she can’t recover more than 75k, ex. a statute that limited amount of recovery
Aggregation:
Where we must add claims to get over 75k
Rule: if you have 1 π and 1 ∆à can aggregate ALL of π’s claims, no limit to the number of claims
But cannot aggregate claims involving multiple parties on either side
Exception: with a joint claim, use total value of the claim, then the number of parties is irrelevant
Ex. 3 joint tortfeasorsà look at value of overall claim
Clue: look for the word “joint”
Ex. suing 3 ∆’s on one claim
Aggregation Rules
One P can aggregate all claims against one D.
Two Ps cannot aggregate against one D.
One P cannot aggregate against two Ds.
Two Ps cannot aggregate against two Ds.
Exception: Joint tortfeasors: 1 P sues 2 Ds for $76k for same injuries.
Equitable Relief: Either ask is harm to P more than 75k or is cost to D more than 75k
Extra:
Extra stuff: P.R., Guam, and DC are states for purposes of jurisdiction.
FRCP 21 allows court to dismiss non-diverse parties from the suit as long as they are not indispensable.
No alienage given from 2nd citizenship if it wouldn’t exist
Federal Question: §1331
Citizenship of parties is irrelevant so is amount in controversy
Well-Pleaded complaint rule: step 1
Look at the face of the complaint, look at nothing from ∆, and ignore everything but the claim itself
Ask: is the π enforcing a federal right?
If yes, then it’s a F.Q. case and it can get in
If no, it’s not a F.Q. case
Only consider the essential parts of the complaint (if π anticipates the ∆’s answer that’s irrelevant)
Motley: not a federal question, because even though they mentioned a federal law, the claim didn’t arise under federal law
See if the statute has a private right of action
Centrality of the issue: step 2
Is π enforcing a federal right?
Grabel requirements:
Cases necessarily raises a Federal issue
Federal issue is actually disputed and substantial
Federal jurisdiction wouldn’t disturb any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities
Don’t flood the courts
Supplemental
It does not get a case into federal court. It only comes up after a case is already in federal court, after invoking Diversity or FQ SMJ. If we have an additional claim that does not meet diversity or
removeà all of those that have been served must agree to removal
Remember:
Change of citizenship of parties will not make a case removable—Citizenship at commencement is what matter
One-ways street—state to federal—cannot have federal to state. If it does not belong is federal court, then the state court remands it to state court
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Road to Personal Jurisdiction
Consent:
waiver of consent
4(k)(1)(a):
A federal court can exercise PJ over D if it stands in the shoes of court of “general subject matter jurisdiction” (most important trial court in state) in the state where Federal District court is located
U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y) would look to NY Supreme Court
Long-Arm Statute:
A law passed by a state legislature that allows the state court to exercise PJ over D
Isolate words that allow/don’t allow based on D’s action (action must relate to claim) – World Wide Volkswagen
14th Amendment:
Due Process Clause: Jurisdiction must be constitutional, D.P.C applies only to states
If that isn’t met, then 3 isn’t necessary
Now, Check for General Personal Jurisdiction or Specific Personal Jurisdiction
4(k)(1)(b):
3rd party D onlyà 5th amendment
4(k)(1)(c):
Congressional approval onlyà 5th amendment
4(k)(2):
Nothing else worksà5th amendment
