Diversity Jurisdiction

Question 1

What is required for a federal court to hear a dispute?

Answer 1

subject matter jurisdiction

personal jursdiction

venue

Question 2

Where do we hear what types of subject matter a federal court may here?

Answer 2

1.) the Constitution (Article III Section 2)
2.) congressional authorization

Question 3

diversity jurisdiction in simple terms

Answer 3

between citizens of different states

Question 4

exclusive jurisdiction

Answer 4

congress defines what may be heard ONLY by federal courts (Rule 28)

Question 5

concurrent jurisdiction

Answer 5

a case can be brought in either state or federal court

Question 6

civil litigation steps

Answer 6

pleading –> discovery –> pretrial –> trial

Question 7

Diversity Jurisdiction sources

Answer 7

1.) Article III Section 2 paragraph 1
2.) 28 USC 1332 (a)

Question 8

what prevents someone from lying about their domicile?

Answer 8

Rule 11 - a lawyer when they sign a document with the court, it must include the basis for the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction

Question 9

what determines citizenship?

Answer 9

the domicile test (Gordon v. Steele)

Question 10

the domicile test

Answer 10

1) establish a residence
2) with the intention to remain there indefinitely

*you can only have one domicile as a person
*you can also have no domicile

Question 11

Gordon v. Steele

Answer 11

Issue: Where is Gordon domiciled for diversity purposes? (Idaho or Penn)
RULE: the domicile test
RULE: domicile is established on the day the complaint is filed

Question 12

28 USC 1332(a)

Answer 12

1) citizens of different states
2) citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
***foreign citizens must be here lawfully to use this section

Question 13

Mas v. Perry

Answer 13

Rule: complete diversity rule
Rule: the AIC requirement is determined by the amount claimed not the amount awarded in court

Question 14

what are the requirements for diversity jurisdiction

Answer 14

1) complete diversity
2) AIC met

Question 15

complete diversity

Answer 15

all plaintiffs must have a different domicile (citizenship) from all defendants

Question 16

amount-in-controversy requirement

Answer 16

the amount must EXCEED 75,000 , as learned in Mas the AIC is met on the plaintiffs claim amount not how much is actually awarded during trial

Question 17

citizenship of corporations

Answer 17

28 USC 1332 (c)

Question 18

28 USC 1332 (c)

Answer 18

a corporations citizenship is determined from both:
1) where the corporation is incorporated and;
2) the corporations principal place of business

Question 19

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Answer 19

Issue: what constitutes a corporation’s principal place of business?
RULE: “nerve test”, when determining a corporation’s principal place of business it is the place where high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corp’s activities

The courts decision was based on:
1) the statute’s language says “place” supporting this approach
2) administrative simplicity
3) legislative history of 1332, congress intended this place

Question 20

Diefenthal v. CAB

Answer 20

RULE: the st. paul mercury test
RULE: would a rational jury find that amount claimed recoverable in trial?

1) claim must be made in good faith AND
2) must be legal certainty that plaintiffs could not recover for an amount exceeding the AIC requirement

Question 21

St Paul Mercury test

Answer 21

a claim must be made in good faith AND there must be legal certainty the plaintiffs could not recover for an amount exceeding the AIC requirement

Question 22

nerve center test

Answer 22

determining a corporation’s principal place of business: it is where high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities

Question 23

aggregation rules to the AIC requirement

Answer 23

1) a single plaintiff may aggregate (add) all claimed damages against a single defendant
** each claim needs to be for a different conduct **
2) tag along plaintiff rule: another plaintiff can add their claim against a defendant, if one plaintiff has already met all diversity requirements