Wed., Sept. 5

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… (e) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

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…

problems of principal place of business

Hertz Corp. v. Friend (US 2010)

what was Hertz’s state of incorporation again…?

partnerships unincorporated associations sole proprieterships

perfecting diversity

the plaintiff is the master of the complaint

P (NY) sues D1 (Cal.) & D2 (NY) in state court in Illinois under state law D1 may not break apart the lawsuit and remove it upon attempted removal a federal court should not either (exceptions – fraudulent joinder)

P (NY) sues D1 (Cal.) & D2 (NY) in federal court under state law the district court recognizes the problem and dismisses P’s action against D2, without P’s consent, in order to retain jurisdiction

Glannon: The court cannot hear the case as originally framed because there is not complete diversity. However, it need not dismiss the entire suit; it can order Delta dropped as a defendant, thus “perfecting diversity,” and continue with the case against the two individual defendants.

Rule 21. Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.

P (NY) sues D1 (Cal.) & D2 (NY) in federal court under state law the case comes to judgment what can the federal court do? what about on appeal? Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonso-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)

devices to create diversity/alienage

changing domicile/state of incorporation/ppb

limiting defendants to create diversity

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.”

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 quantum 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 - D1 hit P on his left side (causing $40K in damages) - D2 hit P on his right side (causing $40K in damages) - P sues D1 and D2, asking for $40K damages each - diversity case?

- D1 (CA) and D2 (CA) beat up P (NY) in a barroom brawl - D1 hit P on his left side (causing $40K in damages) - D2 hit P on his right side (causing $40K in damages) - P sues D1 and D2, asking for the totality of damages caused by D1 and D2 ($80K) which he can get either from D1 or D2 because they are jointly liable - diversity case?

- D1 (CA) and D2 (CA) beat up P (NY) in a barroom brawl - D1 hit P on his left side (causing $80K in damages) - D2 hit P on his right side (causing $40K in damages) - P sues D1 and D2, asking for $80K damages from D1 and $40K damages from D2 - 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 28 U. S. C. § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1367. - Supplemental jurisdiction (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. (b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

X (CA) has died X’s two children (P1 (NY) and P2 (NY)) are the distributees of his estate -- that is, they have a right to inherit (dividing the estate evenly) they receive all the money from the estate that the executor of the estate (D (CA)) claims exists P1 and P2 bring an action in federal court against D who, they allege, has absconded with $80,000 D claims it was a gift from X and so not within the estate diversity case?

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

- P1 (NY) and P2 (NY) each own property adjoining property owned by D (CA) in CA - P1 and P2 sue D in federal court in CA - they 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 - assume the value to P1 and P2 of the injunction is $70,000 each - diversity case ?

constitutional scope of diversity jurisdiction

minimal diversity is any American on one side of the v minimal diversity is any American on one side of the v. a citizen of a different state from any American on the other side of the v.? New Yorker and Californian sues New Yorker and Californian

minimal alienage is there any citizen of a state on one side of the v minimal alienage is there any citizen of a state on one side of the v. and any alien on the other? New Yorker and German sues New Yorker and German

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. 

federal subject matter jurisdiction federal question (or “arising under”) jurisdiction

why have arising under jurisdiction?

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2 U.S. Const. Article III.  Section. 2.  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…

constitutional scope of arising under jurisdiction federal law forms an ingredient

28 U.S.C. §  1331. - Federal question The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.   

Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley (US 1908)

federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, even on appeal and a federal court must bring the matter up sua sponte if it notices it

P sues D in federal court on a state law action, claiming that the two are diverse (P lies about his domicile) P loses the case but upon losing announces that he is domiciled in the same state as D what result?

well-pleaded complaint rule what is the bare minimum that the plaintiff must show to get relief that is what determines SMJ under 1331

if the federal issues cannot be brought in federal district court, how can the Mottleys ever have a federal court opine about them?

how can the US SCt entertain a case that involves only a federal defense?

28 USC § 1257 - State courts; certiorari (a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term “highest court of a State” includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2 U.S. Const. Article III.  Section. 2.  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…

P(NY) sues D(NY) in state court under state law P(NY) sues D(NY) in state court under state law. D introduces the defense that the state law is unconstitutional may Congress passes a statute allowing the defendant to remove this action to federal district court?

what if the Mottleys had brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the federal statute overrode their contract and if it did whether it was a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment? SMJ under 1331? how about if the Railroad had brought the declaratory judgment action?

do not worry about counterclaims here - they cannot be a based for federal question or diversity jurisdiction but we will deal with the details when we discuss counterclaims