Monday, Aug. 28

subject matter jurisdiction

federal subject matter jurisdiction diversity and alienage jurisdiction

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2 U.S. Const. Article III.  Section. 2.  Clause 1:The judicial Power shall extend …to Controversies …between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States…and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. 

Sec. 1332. - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-- (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.. . . (e) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

test for domicile - intent to remain indefinitely - intent to make your home (for the indefinite future)

28 U.S.C. §1332(a) complete diversity complete alienage

for 1332(a) if you are trying for 1332(a)(1) or (3), you need complete diversity no American on one side of the v. can be a domiciliary of the same state as any American on the other side of the v. If you are trying for 1332(a)(2) you need complete alienage all aliens must be on only one side of the v. all citizens of a State on the other

U.S. citizens domiciled abroad fall through the cracks

does it matter that Jean Paul only recovered $5000?

P (NY) seeks to recover funds he believes are due to him under the will of X (CA) P sues X’s executor D (CA) for the funds in federal court SMJ?

Citizenship of Corporations for Diversity Purposes

28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) (c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business…

is 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) constitutional?

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2 U.S. Const. Article III.  Section. 2.  Clause 1:The judicial Power shall extend …to Controversies …between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States…and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. 

P (a citizen of New York) sues the D Corp (incorporated in California with its principal place of business in New York) under state law for more than $75K. Diversity under 1332(a)?

P, a citizen of California, sues the D Corp. in federal court in the N P, a citizen of California, sues the D Corp. in federal court in the N.D. Cal. under state law for more than $75k The D. Corp. has its three of its four manufacturing plants and 2/3 of its employees in Texas Its other plant and around 1/4 of its employees are in Louisiana Its financial and administrative headquarters is in Los Angeles, CA where the President, Board of Directors and 1/12 of its employees are located SMJ?

Hertz Corp. v. Friend (US 2010)

what are Hertz’s contacts with CA? with NJ?

what are Breyer’s arguments for the nerve center approach?

28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) (c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business…

what are the problems with the nerve center test?

P (NY) sues the D law firm, with its one office in NY P (NY) sues the D law firm, with its one office in NY. The partners’ commute to the office from their homes in NJ and CT. diversity?

unions. limited partnerships. limited liability partnerships unions? limited partnerships? limited liability partnerships? professional corporations?

P(IL) sues the D Corp (a Venezuela corp with its ppb in Venezuela) and X (a US citizen domiciled in Venezuela) in federal court in IL P subsequently settles against X and prevails at trial against the D Corp the D Corp moves to have the case dismissed for lack of smj result?

assume instead that P and X had not settled and that P had prevailed against both the D Corp and X at trial on appeal the 7th Cir notices the problem can anything be done?

P(IL) sues the D Corp (a Venezuela corp with its ppb in Venezuela) and X (a US citizen domiciled in Venezuela) in federal court in IL the district court recognizes the problem and dismisses P’s action against X, without P’s consent, in order to retain jurisdiction OK?

P(IL) sues the D Corp (a Venezuela corp with its ppb in Venezuela) and X (a US citizen domiciled in Venezuela) in state court in IL the D Corp removes the action against it alone to federal court, leaving P v. X in state court OK?

devices to create diversity/alienage

changing domicile/state of incorporation/ppb

changing plaintiffs to create diversity

28 USC §1359 A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.

X (Cal. ) slips and falls in a store owned by D (Cal. ) X (Cal.) slips and falls in a store owned by D (Cal.). Can X generate diversity jurisdiction by assigning his lawsuit to P (Nev.)?

D (Cal. ) breaches a contract he entered into with X (Cal. ) D (Cal.) breaches a contract he entered into with X (Cal.). Can X generate diversity jurisdiction by assigning his lawsuit to P (Nev.)?

limiting defendants to create diversity

D (NY) and X (Cal) beat up P (Cal) in a bar in Texas D (NY) and X (Cal) beat up P (Cal) in a bar in Texas. P sues D in federal court for the damages caused.

amount in controversy requirement

St. Paul Mercury test when a plaintiff is invoking diversity/alienage jurisdiction NOT when defendant is seeking to remove “It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.”

Diefenthal v. C.A.B. (5th Cir. 1982)

what should the Diefenthals have said in their complaint?

could the court have claimed that the amount in controversy was not satisfied because the actions of the airline were not wrongful?

doesn’t determining whether the amount in controversy is satisfied mean trying the case?

Fed. R. Civ. P. states (roughly) that a factual allegation must have evidentiary support does satisfaction of St. Paul Mercury concerning damages mean that R 11 has been satisfied?

28 USC § 1332(b)  Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.

aggregation

can aggregate only an individual P’s actions against an individual D

P (NY) sues D (CA) for battery ($40K) joined with an unrelated breach of contract action ($40K) diversity case?

- P and D had an agreement for P to do work for D for $50,000 - P does the work but D doesn't pay - in P's (NY) complaint against D (NJ), P asks for $50,000 under a theory of breach of contract - alternatively - if it is found that there is no contract - he asks for $40,000 in quantuum meruit (the fair market value of the labor he performed) - diversity case?

D (CA) beats up P1 (NY) and P2 (NY) in a barroom brawl P1 and P2 together sue D, asking for $40K damages each diversity case?

- D1 (CA) and D2 (CA) beat up P (NY) in a barroom brawl - P sues D1 and D2, asking for $40K damages each (for the damages that each defendant individually caused him) - diversity case?

- D1 (CA) and D2 (CA) beat up P (NY) in a barroom brawl - P sues D1 and D2, asking for $40K damages each (for the damages that each defendant individually caused him) - diversity case?

- D1 (CA) and D2 (CA) beat up P (NY) in a barroom brawl - P sues D1 and D2, asking for $80K damages from D1 and $40K damages from D2 (for the damages that each defendant individually caused him) - diversity case?

D (CA) beats up P1 (NY) and P2 (NY) in a barroom brawl P1 asks for $80K damages and P2 asks for $40K damages diversity case?

supplemental jurisdiction

Someone has died the two children of the decedent (P1 (NY) and P2 (NY)) are the distributees of his estate -- that is, they have a right to inherit P1 and P2 bring an action against the executor of the estate (D (CA)), who, they allege, has absconded with $80,000 $40,000 of that should go to P1 and $40,000 to P2.

exception to prohibition on aggregation concerning multiple parties – common and undivided right

P1 and P2 are suing D (P1 and P2 each have property adjoining D's) P1 and P2 ask the court to enjoin D from polluting their property by shutting down his rendering plant assume that the cost to D in lost revenue if he shuts down the plant is $70,000 the value to P1 and P2 of the injunction is $70,000 each is the amount in controversy satisfied for diversity?

constitutional scope of diversity jurisdiction

Class Action Fairness Act 1332(d)(2) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which— (A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; (B) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or (C) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state.

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2 U.S. Const. Article III.  Section. 2.  Clause 1:The judicial Power shall extend …to Controversies …between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States…and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.