1. Monday, Sept. 3

2. J. D. Review Session W 3:30-5:00 Room 119 L. L. M
J.D. Review Session W 3:30-5:00 Room 119 L.L.M. Review Session Th 3:30-5:00 Room 138

3. federal subject matter jurisdiction diversity and alienage jurisdiction

4. 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. 

5. Sec 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

6. test for changing domicile - presence plus at that moment - intent to remain indefinitely - intent to make your home (even for a definite period)

7. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) complete diversity complete alienage

8. 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

9. U. S. nationals domiciled abroad fall through the cracks Californian v
U.S. nationals domiciled abroad fall through the cracks Californian v. Eliz. Taylor

10. What about Californian v. Nevadan and Eliz. Taylor or Californian v
What about Californian v. Nevadan and Eliz. Taylor or Californian v. German and Eliz. Taylor

11. Sec 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

12. Citizenship of Corporations for Diversity Purposes

13. 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…

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

15. 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. 

16. Congress could send the following to federal court: Delawarean v
Congress could send the following to federal court: Delawarean v. New Yorker and Delawarean

17. so can it send the following. Delawarean v
so can it send the following? Delawarean v. Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in New York

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

19. problems of principal place of business

20. Hertz Corp. v. Friend (US 2010)

21. what was the Ninth Circuit’s approach to the ppb requirement?

22. If the amount of activity is “significantly larger” or “substantially predominates” in one State, then that State is the corporation’s “principal place of business.” If there is no such State, then the “principal place of business” is the corporation’s “ ‘nerve center,’ ” i.e., the place where “ ‘the majority of its executive and administrative functions are performed.’ 

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

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

25. 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…

26. what are the problems with the nerve center test?

27. 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?

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

29. P (Germany) sues D (Cal. ) and the X Corp. (Del. Corp
P (Germany) sues D (Cal.) and the X Corp. (Del. Corp., PPB France) in federal court P subsequently settles against X Corp. and prevails at trial against D the D moves to have the case dismissed for lack of SMJ result?

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

31. P (Germany) sues D (Cal. ) and the X Corp. (Del. Corp
P (Germany) sues D (Cal.) and the X Corp. (Del. Corp., PPB France) in federal court the district court recognizes the problem and dismisses P’s action against X Corp., without P’s consent, in order to retain jurisdiction OK?

32. P (Germany) sues D (Cal. ) and the X Corp. (Del. Corp
P (Germany) sues D (Cal.) and the X Corp. (Del. Corp., PPB France) in state court in IL the D removes the action against him alone to federal court, leaving P v. X Corp. in state court OK?

33. devices to create diversity/alienage

34. changing domicile/state of incorporation/ppb

35. changing plaintiffs to create diversity

36. 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.

37. 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.)?

38. 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.)?

39. limiting defendants to create diversity

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

41. amount in controversy requirement

42. 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.”

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

44. what should the Diefenthals have said in their complaint?

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

46. 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.