Nathenson_Civil Procedure_Fall_2012
Chapter 1
II. The Two American Court Systems
III. The Structure of State Court System
IV. The Structure of the Federal Court System
V. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of State Courts: General Principles
VI. The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: General Principles
VII. American Courts: Summary of Basic Principles
http://quizlet.com/8812183/civil-procedure-i-flash-cards/
Chapter 2
Description of the litigation process and sources of procedural law
PART TWO: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Cannot be waived; can be raised
Chapter 3
Diversity Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts
US Constitution Article II Section 2:
· Framers created federal jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states to provide a neutral forum to avoid local bias.
· Framers were also concerned that state courts would not adequately protect out-of-state creditors trying to collect debts from local citizens
Amount on controversy requirement: more than $75,000- 28 USC §1332 b
State Citizenship of Individuals:
Ø Since neither Article II § 2 nor USC §1332 answer these state citizenship questions, judges must establish rules of interpretation in individual diversity cases.
o The Domicile Test
II. State Citizenship of Individuals: The domicile test
Gordon v. Steele Penn. (1974)
Relevant Facts:
1. Gordon suffered an injury and received a wrongful diagnosis from defendant on 02/25/72; cause of action (CoA) arose
2. Defendant filed the suit on 04/10/73 (Relevant)
3. On August 9/72, she went to college in Idaho
4. Defendants on 01/21/74 moved to dismiss for lack of diversity.
o Procedure. Motion to dismiss (MTD)
Issue: whether or not the plaintiff claim of diversity is accepted for the case or if it could be not accepted
Rules:
o It is the citizenship of the parties at the time of the action is commenced which is controlling
o The fact of residency must be coupled with a finding of intent to remain indefinitely.
o It is enough to intent to make the new state one’s home
o It is the intention at the time of arrival which is important
Analysis:
· What test for domicile test the court applied?
o Her intent to make the new state her own home
· What date did the court choose for comparing the state citizenship of the parties?
o The time the action was brought (04/10/73)
· Factors that the court look when applying the citizenship test to her?
o Address in college records, Driver license, bank accounts, where she spent her vacations, religious desires, intention, health insurance, apartment, voting registration
· Factors pointed both ways, why did they favor her? P. 45
o They valued her intention at the time of arrival to Idaho, no matter what she did later. (her intention to remain indefinitely)
Conclusion: Considering the student’s connection with Idaho and her subjective intention of not returning to Pa. in the foreseeable future, the court concluded that she was a citizen of Idaho for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss was denied. Burden of proof on Gordon to prove diversity exists (assume the facts as if they were true)
Animo manendi: the intention of remaining. Indefinite: for the time at least
The Common Law concept of domicile: residence with the intent to remain “indefinitely”
Losing and gaining domicile: a person does not lose her old domicile until she acquires a new one, it means, until she goes to another state with the intent to reside indefinitely in the new state
Meaning of “indefinite” intent: it is enough that the party “intends to make the new state his home and that he has no present intention of going elsewhere to live. If so, the person is in the state on an open-ended basis and establishes a new domicile
The diversity statute, 28 USC § 1332: Amount on controversy requirement: more than $75,000
(1) provides that the federal district courts shall have jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states
(2) citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
If plaintiff and defendant are from different states, any federal district court will have diversity jurisdiction over the case.
Holmes case: Did Holmes acquire domicile in Ohio?
Rule: a person does not lose his old domicile until he acquires a new one, it means, until he goes to another state with the intent to reside indefi
ty case, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as the defendant
2. The “alienage jurisdiction”: Framers authorized federal courts to hear cases between US citizens and citizens of foreign states
3. State citizens and national citizens
· Congress has created a statutory exception to the rule for foreign citizens admitted to the US for permanent residence under the immigration laws. They are treated as citizens of their state of domicile
The domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has long held that the diversity statute does not authorize jurisdiction over domestic relation cases.
IV. State Citizenship of Corporations and other entities
A corporation is:
Ø An intangible legal entity created under state incorporation laws
Ø A corporation can invoke DJ of the federal courts
Ø §1332 (c)(1): A corporation shall be deemed citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business
To determine what is the PPoB (Principal Place of Business) the courts applied different tests, but referred is the Nerve Center test.
Nerve Center: the corporation headquarters (the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities)
Incorporated associations: (labor unions, churches and advocacy groups)
Other entities: partnerships, subsidiaries and divisions of corporations, cooperatives, nonprofit corporations, and professional corporations.
More exotic forms of business organizations: limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, and others.
§1332 (c)(1) does not specify how these entities are to be treated, so the courts have to analogize them to corporations or to a collection of individuals in determining their state citizenship.
