Select Page

Civil Procedure II
UMKC School of Law
Achtenberg, David Jacks

 
David Achtenberg
Civil Procedure II
Summer 2014
Federal Jurisdiction
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A Plaintiff can get into federal court by 3 ways: (1) Diversity, (2) Federal Question, (3) Supplemental jurisdiction
–          DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
o   § 1332 (a)(1) of the judicial code
§  2 REQUIREMENTS:
·         complete diversity- case is between citizens of different states. No P shares citizenship with ANY D.
·         and amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 meaning the amount needs to be at least $75,000.01
§  citizenship of parties is determined at the time of filing
·         EX: if A is a citizen of MO and files then becomes citizen of KS subsequently, for diversity purposes A is citizen of MO
o   EXCEPTION: even if you have complete diversity, these CANNOT be filed into federal court: family law (divorce, child custody), and probate
o   EXCEPTION: you can have less than complete diversity in situations of class action cases and in interpleader situations
o   A citizen of the US who is domiciled in a foreign state is not a citizen of any state nor is he a citizen of the foreign state.
o   A citizen of the United States who is domiciled in a foreign nation is not a citizen of any state nor is he or she a citizen of the foreign nation. Therefore, such an individual cannot invoke either state-to-state diversity nor state-to-alienage diversity.
CITIZENSHIP
–          Attack plan for exam:
o   1. Establish citizen of the US
o   2. Trace domicile to find state citizenship. There will be many possibilities, and go through each
o   3. Settle on a domicile, but add that you may need more information and/or this may not be the correct one if more facts come out
o   4. Then trace the domicile for the corporations/ defendants. It is likely to be an unincorporated entity because these have the citizenship of all members (usually about 3). There will likely be an alien in here who is admitted for permeant residency. Note that usually they are a citizen of the state they are AFPR but the JVCA ruled in some circumstances this should be ignored and look at the country they are in. here you should note they are likely a citizen of the country but it is possible they are a citizen in that state of AFPR (which is likely to impact diversity in some way)
o   5. Then look to the amount in controversy. If there is one plaintiff and one defendant, may be able to aggregate claim
INDIVIDUALS
Requirements (for exam question, must check off these points):
domicile in the state and either
(1)    must be a citizen of the US (born or naturalized) or
(2)    an alien admitted for permanent residence AND
(3)    must be domiciled in a state (residence with intent to stay)
if you are a citizen of the US but not domiciled in any state—you will not be diverse from anyone an you will need to bring the claim in state court (Mas v. Perry)
this only applies for diversity jurisdiction, not for federal question
child has parents domicile until age of majority or emancipation. If parents die and child adopted, child will have adopted parents domicile.
FIDUCIARIES
General rule: domicile of fiduciary (not domicile of grantor or beneficiaries) but there are exceptions
decedent’s estateàtake domicile of decedent
next friend/GALàtake domicile of infant or ward
GAL – guardian ad lihtum is someone appointed to represent minor when the minor is the defendant
Next friend is someone appointed to represent the minor when the minor is the plaintiff
class action representativesàactual citizenship of class members
CORPORATIONS
a Professional Corporation is an incorporated entity
Dual citizenship
(1) principal place of business AND
(2) state of incorporation
Note: it does not matter WHERE the corporation does business for diversity purposes
Theories about principal place of business—FOR ENTIRE CORPORATION, NOT JUST FOR THE RELEVANT ACCIDENT
Where the principal operations are—what are they doing on a day to day basis. Courts will usually use a “total activity” test. Looking to see where the bulk of corporate activity takes place
If that is evenly divided among different locations, look to nerve center as a tie breaker–where the high level decisions are made
UNINCORPORATED ENTITIES
Partnerships: citizenship of all the partners
Limited partnerships: citizenship of all the general partners and the limited partners
Unincorporated associations: (unions): citizenship of every member
LLC: citizenship of all members
If there is an alien: address that AFPR may have been their state, but they are not a state citizen, and the JVCA says to use THE COUNTRY AS THEIR RESIDENCE.
 
o   Questions to ask to find out where someone/ a corporation is a citizens of
·         If incorporated: where are the high level decisions made and where is it incorporated?
·         If limited partnership: what is the citizenship of all partners?
·         If it is unincorporated association: what is the citizenship of all members?
·         If it is an individual: is she a US citizen and where is she domiciled?
DIVERSITY AND ALIENS
All foreign nations are treated as the same nation
Different Foreigners on both sides will not destroy diversity
only talking about people not admitted for permanent residences—true aliens
§ 1332(a)(4) citizen of a state v. citizen/subject of a foreign state
Ex: KS vs. United Kingdom—YES
Ex: KS vs Mo and United Kingdon—yes.
Ex: KS and United Kingdom v. MO and United Kingdom—doesn’t look ok but, according to §1332(a)(3)—additional of foreign citizens DOES NOT DESTROY DIVERSITY
§  EX: KS and Mexico v UK – no because Mexico and UK are essentially the same
§  But if foreigners on both sides of the V then does not destroy diversity
§  If an alien has been admitted for permanent residence, then ignore their country and look only at the state
o   ATTACK PLAIN FOR ALIENS:
§  1. are there US citizens on both sides
·   

e domicile unless other 2 requirements are met
 
 
–          AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
o   Amount must EXCEED $75,000.00 so need to sue for at least $75,000.01 as the claim itself
o   Standard: good faith rule: anything is OK unless it is CLEAR TO A LEGAL CERTAINTY that the plaintiff could NOT recover more than $75K. Federal jurisdiction is not lost if LESS than $75K is awarded
§  There is a presumption if you ask for more than $75K it is in good faith
§  Examples of not meeting the good faith claim rule:
·         Statutory cap
·         Purely property damage (ex: car bought for $15K)
·         Contract claim
o   Amount in controversy is measures at the time of the filing
§  Even if the district court knocks out one claim and the amount is reduced, this does not mean the amount in controversy is less because you can always appeal
§  General rule: all issues of jurisdiction are determined at filing
§  Exception: when one VOLUNTARILY reduces amount in controversy, it will destroy the amount if it is below $75K
§  Affirmative defenses cannot be used to whittle down the amount in controversy
o   If D wants to remove from state court and go to federal court:
§  An amount is stated: state with the presumption that it is more than 75K and apply good faith rule
§  The amount is 75K or less, then it is presumed to be the amount and the burden falls on D to show that WITH LEGAL CERTAINTY the P will ask for more money
AGGREGATION OF CLAIMS
o   Aggregation where we must add multiple claims to get over $75,000
§  We aggregate the plaintiffs claims IF there is ONE PLAINTIFF V ONE DEFENDANT
·         No limit on the amount of claims and the claims do not have to be related
·         Claim can be one of punitive damages; anything as long as in good faith
·         EX: plaintiff sues defendant and asserts 2 claims. Claim 1 is for 40K for breach of K. claim 2 is for 60K and is for unrelated tort
§  Cannot aggregate if multiple parties on either side
·         EX: P sues D1 and D2. D1 is for 40K. D2 is for 60K. cannot go to federal court because cannot aggregate the claims if multiple parties,
o   With a joint claim, use the total value of the claim
§  Here the number of parties is irrelevant
§  All you look is the value of the claim itself
§  EX: 3 people punch plaintiff. Plaintiff sues the 3 joint tortfeasors. There is jurisdiction because it is a joint claim