Civil Procedure Cooper Spring 2017
Article 3 section 2 defines the scope of the Federal Courts
Main two disputes
Cases arising under this Constitution or the Laws of the US
Cases between “citizens of different states”
Concurrent Jurisdiction- the plaintiff has the choice to bring it in federal court or in state court
–Claim Preclusion (res judicata)- prevents a party who has sued a defendant on a claim from suing that defendant again on the same claim, if the first case was decided after a full opportunity to reach the merits
Car accident, injuries in one case and car damage in another (cant do that)
Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)- precludes parties from relitigating issues that were already litigated
Subletting house two different summers
28 U.S.C. 1332(a) Diversity Jurisdiction- cases between citizens of different states, has to be more than $75,000 in controversy
The Domicile Test-“it is the citizenship of the parties at the time the action is commenced which is controlling”
Gordon v. Steele (college student)
For purposes of diversity citizenship, a college student’s new state of residence will be considered his or her domicile upon a factual determination that the student has sufficient connection with the state and an intent to remain indefinitely.
It is not necessary that the individual plan to remain in the state permanently
Indefinite- often, courts state that it is enough that the party “intend[s] to make the new state home and that the person has no present intention of going elsewhere [to live].”
A person remains a citizen (domiciliary) of a state until he/she: (1) takes up residence in a different state (domicile), and (2) intends to remain there indefinitely. Gordon. This is the most common formulation of the test.
No defendant can be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
Mas v. Perry (LSU, wife, French husband)
To determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists, the court must look at where the parties are domiciled; that is, where the parties have their true, fixed, and permanent homes. To change where she is domiciled, a party must both take up residence in a different location and intend to stay at the new location
A corporation is a citizen of:
Its place of incorporation AND
Its principal place of business. 1332(c)(1)
Hertz Corp v. Friend
Nerve Center Test- A corporation’s principal place of business, for federal diversity jurisdiction purposes, refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the company’s activities.
Non-corporate entities are treated differently from corporations.
Example: An accounting firm organized as a partnership with partners in 20 states is considered to be a citizen of all 20 states for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
A business in California may make more money than a business in MS, but that doesn’t mean California is its principal place of business.
If the court later finds out that it doesn’t have diversity jurisdiction over one of the parties, that party can drop out and the court will have jurisdiction again at the time of judgment (makes no sense to retry the case)
Amount in Controversy Requirement
Determined (by the judge) at the time the complaint is filed, not how much is recovered.
Allegations of damages are accepted unless it is clear to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover more than the amount in controversy requirement. St. Paul Mercury
Diefenthal v. Cab
The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really far less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.
Single and Multiple Parties
Single P vs. Single D (typically allowed)
May aggregate claims even if unrelated in order to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
Multiple Parties (typically not allowed among parties)
Several plaintiffs. None of them exceed 75K by themselves, but they exceed 75K together. (can’t do this)
Several defendants. The plaintiff does not have a claim that exceeds 75K against any individual defendant, but the claims exceed 75K in total. (can’t do this)
Multiple plaintiffs and defendants. (can’t do this)
In most of these cases, aggregation is not allowed even when the claims are all related
–keep supplement jurisdiction in mid
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Two Requirements
Statutory – congress can limit Constitutional scope,
Amount in Controversy
(Note)Congress cannot not do things that the consti
statue prevents them from renewing the Mottley’s passes
Court doesn’t want defendants who have a federal defense to be able to get around the Motley rule by filing the case in federal court
The statute gives the party the ability to bring a declaratory judgment, but there still has to be a jurisdictional basis
Louisville could bring the declaratory judgment, just not in federal court because there is not jurisdiction
Note about that other provision at the end of this slide show (PowerPoint CH4)
—–Need Constitutional AND statutory grant of authority
Article III, Section 1 (Osborn)
Article III, Section 2 (Tashire)
1332(a) (Strawbridge, St. Paul Mercury, Deifenthal)
1331 (Mottley I)
1257 (Mottley II)
Chapter 20: Supplemental Jurisdiction
Supplemental Jurisdiction (Pendent Jurisdiction)
The right to add such related claims in Federal Court
Discretion (the reasons from the book & that I have written down)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
Gibbs Two-Part Test
1. Does the court have power – (not the issue in this class)
2. Do claims comprise “one constitutional ‘case’” i.e. arise out of “common nucleus of operative fact”?
What if federal claim is dismissed and all that is left is the state claim?; it can still keep it
Because we are looking at the jurisdiction at the time of filing?
May decide to keep it because the court has already head a lot of it so might as well finish it
May decide to throw it out because it is just a state claim now and no need really to keep it
His three options if can’t bring them both in federal court
Bring both in state court
Drop the state claim
Bring two suits in two courts (state and federal)
Impleader- Where a defendant bring in someone else who they think is liable in the case