M2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Flashcards
*Damien was a student attending State A University. While at school, Damien lived in a dormitory on campus. During holidays and breaks, Damien returned to his hometown in State B. During his senior year in college, Damien decided to move to State A permanently so he began looking for an off-campus apartment. After graduating, Damien was recruited by a multi-national advertising firm based in State C. Damien was recruited to head up their State D office. While travelling to State D to begin searching for an apartment, Damien was in a car accident which required a six month stay at a local State A hospital.
State B, where he lived prior to attending college
An individual is domiciled where his true, fixed, and permanent place of residence is located. Domicile is the place the person intends to return whenever they are away for a period of time. However, intent alone is not enough. The individual would have to take affirmative steps to establish a physical residence. Before establishing a new domicile, the person maintains their previous one. Here, Damien was domiciled in State B and although he lived in State A for four years, living in a dormitory on campus is not a permanent place of residence. Even after deciding to move to State A permanently, Damien had not yet established a permanent residence. Also, Damien did not establish a physical residence in State D. Damien’s employer’s domicile is irrelevant. Thus, since Damien has not established a new domicile, he keeps his old one, which is still State B.
Passenger, a citizen of State L, was riding in a car driven by his friend Driver, a citizen of State T. They crashed into a car driven by Plaintiff, a State T citizen. Plaintiff and Passenger filed an action in federal court in State T in which each of the plaintiffs asserted a $100,000 tort action against Driver.
Driver filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the court granted. Did the court err in granting the motion?
No, because Driver and Plaintiff are both citizens of State T.
The presence of one non-diverse plaintiff (here, Plaintiff) destroys the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. §1332. Thus, the lack of diversity between Plaintiff and Driver precludes Passenger from using diversity jurisdiction as the basis for exercising original jurisdiction over any claim in the case. Thus, the court must dismiss both claims.
*Plaintiff and Defendant were married in State A, where both their children were also born. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to State B where he was employed. After 15 years of marriage and accumulating significant marital assets totaling $10 million, the couple decided to divorce. Plaintiff filed for divorce in federal district court in State B, seeking joint custody of the children and a court order splitting the marital estate equally to each spouse.
Defendant moved to dismiss the divorce action. How should the court rule on her motion?
The district court will decline exercising jurisdiction over the action.
Even if diversity jurisdiction is present because federal courts will decline exercising such power when the lawsuit pertains to divorce and child custody. Generally, a federal court is required to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a state law claim if the individual parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is satisfied. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized an exception in diversity actions for suits involving domestic relations. The exception covers divorce actions, alimony, and child custody cases, but does not include suits for torts. Here, Plaintiff seeks a divorce and child custody, and the district court should exercise its discretion and decline to exercise diversity jurisdiction even though diversity jurisdiction is present.
*Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court after the Defendant refused to perform under a signed contract. The contract was for the sale of real estate worth $75,000. In fact, not only did the Defendant refuse but the day after signing the contract with Plaintiff, the Defendant sold the land to a bona fide purchaser.
Plaintiff is a citizen of State M and Defendant is a citizen of State C. After suit was filed, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
The district court should grant the motion, because the court lacks subject matter over the controversy.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over violations of federal law, constitutional rights violations, and state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires that there is complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendant and the claim is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000. Here, the real estate was worth exactly $75,000 and there is no indication that the Plaintiff has damages above the worth of the land. Since the claim is for exactly $75,000, it is not reasonably likely to exceed $75,000; therefore, diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied.
Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant, citizen of State B alleging one count of negligence resulting from a car accident and one count for breach of contract resulting from an agreement the parties entered into a year prior to their accident. Plaintiff alleged damages to his car and person in the amount of $50,000. The contract called for liquidated damages in the amount of $35,000.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy. How should the court rule?
The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff can aggregate their damages from two unrelated claims in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims where the adverse parties are diverse in citizenship (meaning no plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant) and the controversy is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000. In order to satisfy the threshold amount, aggregation of damages is permitted in unrelated cases between the same parties.
Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit against her neighbor, also a citizen of State X, for damages to her new car resulting from an accident on their shared driveway. The neighbor had also caused significant damage to Plaintiff’s fence, garage, and prized rose bushes. After failed attempts to settle their dispute, Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in State X alleging damages against the neighbor exceeding $75,000. The neighbor filed a motion to dismiss. How should the court rule?
The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff has not met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims where the adverse parties are diverse in citizenship (meaning no plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant) and the amount in controversy is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000. Here, Plaintiff has a state law claim of negligence against her neighbor. In order to assert proper federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff would have to satisfy both prongs. While the damages are reasonably likely to exceed $75,000, the parties are neighbors, meaning that they are citizen of the same state. Therefore, complete diversity of citizenship is lacking.
*Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant Car Co., incorporated in State Y with its principal place of business in State X. Plaintiff alleges a defect in the manufacturing of her car by Defendant caused her accident where she incurred property damage and severe bodily injuries. Due to the severity of her injuries, Plaintiff alleges her medical expenses alone exceed $1,000,000.
After filing suit in federal district court in State Z, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, denying any liability for Plaintiff’s losses. A month thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that Defendant waived its right to object to the court’s power when it failed to assert it with its previous motion.
How should the court rule on Defendant’s second motion to dismiss?
The district court should grant Defendant’s motion, because the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiff and Defendant are both from State X.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims where the adverse parties are diverse in citizenship (meaning no plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant) and the controversy is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000. Individuals are citizens in the state where they are domiciled, meaning where their true, fixed, and permanent place of residence is located. Corporations have dual citizenship — their state of incorporation and where their principal place of business is located. Here, Plaintiff is a citizen of State X. Defendant Car Co. has its principal place of business in State X. Since both Plaintiff and Defendant are from the same state, there is no diversity of citizenship. Therefore, the federal court lacks the power to adjudicate this controversy and it must dismiss.
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. One of the fundamental principles in civil procedure is the court’s power over the controversy. Subject matter jurisdiction, the court’s power over the controversy, can never be waived. The lack of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction can be asserted at any stage of the litigation, even for the first time on appeal. Rule 12(g)(2) requires parties to consolidate and bring forth as many defenses and objections the party has available or else they are waived, except for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction found in FRCP 12 (h)(3)
Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, were travelling in their home state of A when Defendant, from State Z, crashed into Plaintiffs’ pick-up truck, causing the truck to spin out of control and into oncoming traffic. Both plaintiffs suffered significant personal injuries, requiring long-term hospital stays and rehabilitation.
A year after the accident, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in federal district court in State Z based on diversity jurisdiction, each plaintiff alleging damages exceeding $250,000. A week later, Plaintiffs decided to permanently move to State Z — they sold their home in State A and purchased a new home in State Z. Plaintiffs also both sought employment in State Z.
During discovery, Defendant learned of Plaintiffs’ move and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
The court should deny the motion, because the court has proper subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims where the adverse parties are diverse in citizenship (meaning no plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant) and the controversy is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000. Individuals are citizens in the state where they are domiciled, meaning where their true, fixed, and permanent place of residence is located. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, citizenship is determined at the time of filing and diversity of citizenship need not continue after filing. Here, at the time of filing, Plaintiffs were citizens of State A and Defendant was a citizen of State Z, thus complete diversity existed. The fact that Plaintiffs moved a week after filing the suit does not affect the court’s jurisdiction, as diversity need not continue after the suit is filed.
Plaintiff believes that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her sex in violation of both federal and state law. However, she wants to avoid being in federal court and so she files a complaint in state court asserting only a claim under the state anti-discrimination statute. Assuming the parties are not of diverse citizenship, will she be successful in staying out of federal court?
Yes, because of the “master of the complaint” doctrine.
As the master of her complaint, the plaintiff has the right to choose which claims to assert and not assert. Assuming that a well-pleaded state law claim does not contain a substantial issue of federal law, as this would not, then the plaintiff can refuse to assert the federal claim to avoid having the defendant remove the case.
*The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brings a state breach of contract action in federal district court alleging that the defendant, also a citizen of State A, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that even if he misrepresented important features of the home in violation of the requirements of federal disclosure law, this statute is unconstitutional. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?
No, because this case does not arise under federal law and the parties are citizens of the same state.
Federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question issue or diversity jurisdiction. When seeking jurisdiction under federal question, the federal question must be part of the plaintiff’s cause of action, not any alleged or anticipated defense. Although a federal constitutional issue is raised in the plaintiff’s complaint, it is only there as a response to an anticipated federal defense. Here, this action is a basic breach of contract claim by the plaintiff, which arises under state law.
Although a federal constitutional issue is raised in the plaintiff’s complaint, it is only there as a response to an anticipated federal defense. Thus, it is not deemed to have arisen within a well-pleaded complaint. Consequently, it does not arise under federal law under §1331.
The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brought a state breach of contract action in federal district court alleging that the defendant, also a citizen of State A, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. The defendant’s answer admits that he refused to buy the home but alleges that because the plaintiff had lied in certain representations about the home contained in a federally required disclosure form, the deal was unenforceable under the governing federal disclosure statute. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?
No, because this case does not arise under federal law.
Federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question issue or diversity jurisdiction. When seeking jurisdiction under federal question, the federal question must be part of the plaintiff’s cause of action, not any alleged or anticipated defense. The federal issue concerning the federal disclosure statute comes into the case only as a defense issue and therefore the federal question is not part of a well-pleaded complaint. Here, this action is a basic breach of contract claim by the plaintiff, which arises under state law.
The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, files a claim in federal district court alleging that the defendant, a Delaware corporation, violated her rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks damages in the amount of $50,000. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?
Yes, because the claim arises under federal law.
The plaintiff’s case arises under the federal statute, giving the federal court subject matter jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy. Unlike diversity cases, there is no jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement for federal question cases under §1331.
Following an auto accident, Plaintiff-driver and Passenger of a car bring a negligence action against Defendant driver in state court in State T. Plaintiff-driver is a citizen of State T and Passenger is a citizen of State L. Defendant-driver is a citizen of State T. Each of the plaintiffs seeks $100,000 in damages against Defendant. Passenger also files a $100,000 claim against Plaintiff-driver for damages resulting from the injury.
Can Plaintiff-driver properly remove the case?
No, because plaintiffs cannot remove cases.
Section 1441A provides for removal “by the defendant or the defendants.” Here, the removing party is a plaintiff who is the defendant to a cross-claim by a co-plaintiff. A plaintiff can never remove a case, even if the plaintiff is a “defendant” in a cross-claim (as here) or counterclaim. Thus, the case by Passenger against Plaintiff-driver (defendant in cross-claim) cannot be removed on the basis of a state law cross-claim even if it meets all requirements set forth in §1332 for original jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
Plaintiff, a citizen of State O, filed a lawsuit in O State court asserting a $250,000 negligence claim against a citizen of State I and a $20,000 breach of contract claim against a citizen of State O. Three days after filing the complaint, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim against the State O defendant. The next day, the defendant from State I removed the case.
How should the court respond to the defendant’s removal motion?
The court should deny the motion, because it now falls within the court’s original jurisdiction.
Originally, this case was not removable because it was a state law claim lacking in complete diversity. However, the case became removable when Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim against the non-diverse defendant, the State O defendant. By so doing, there was complete diversity between Plaintiff and the remaining defendant, the State I defendant.
Where the plaintiff effectuates the change in the status quo, the case is removable.
Section 1446B directly addresses this scenario by providing that where the case stated by the original complaint is not removable, but a change is made thereafter that renders the case removable, the defendant is not precluded by the generally applicable requirement in §1446A that the notice of removal be filed within 30 days after receipt of the initial complaint but may remove the case within 30 days after the case becomes removable.
This is not without its limits: In diversity cases that were not removable on the basis of the initial pleading, §1446B provides for a one-year statute of limitations on removal dating from the commencement of the suit.
Plaintiff, from State M, sued his employer, Del Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State O, for wrongful termination. Plaintiff’s attorney prepared the complaint on May 1st, but did not email a copy of the prepared complaint to Del Corp. until August 2nd. After Del Corp did not respond to the email, Plaintiff had his attorney file the complaint in State M state court, seeking $100,000 in damages, and properly served Del Corp on August 15th. On August 16th, Del Corp. removed the case to federal court.
Should the court grant the removal?
The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until September 14th to remove the case.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446, the defendant has 30 days after receiving the complaint through proper service of process to remove the case to federal court. Del Corp. was served on August 15th, which began the 30-day clock. Thirty days from that date is September 14.
