Midterm Flashcards
1332(a) Diversity Jx
Fed its have sm jx over all cases in which AoC is greater than $75,000 and the parties to the litigation are diverse. Diversity:
(1) controversy between citizens of different states;
(2) citizens of a different state and citizens of a foreign state
(3) citizens of different states in which citizens of a foreign state are additional parties
(4) a foreign state, defined in 1603(a) of this title, as P and citizens of a state or of different states
Diversity Citizenship for Individuals
(Gordon v. Steele) an individual is a citizen of the state in which the individual is
(a) physically present at time of filing; and has
(b) intent to remain indefinitely
*Don’t acquire a new domicile until you lose the old one
*no definite plans to leave in the future–> intent to remain indefinitely
Alienage jx
if a foreign citizen has a green card, domicile is in the US even if not a “citizen”
Strawbridge
complete diversity required by statute, not included in the Constitution
Corporations
(Hertz v. Friend) A corp is a citizen of the state in which they are
(1) incorporated; and
(2) Have their principal place of business
(a) PPB is where the nerve center is –> ie where corporate decisions are made
Can try and argue that PPB should be med in state where more than half of gross income comes from. (disfavored, would always be highly populous state [CA])
Carden Rule (citizenship for other business entities)
Partnerships, limited partnerships, LLCs, unions–> look to citizenship of all owners, partners, or members
- Proposal to treat them like corps
Perfecting diversity
Court may dismiss a party whose participation destroys complete diversity
Diversity exception
For domestic relations. Family law always in state ct.
Amount in Controversy (AIC) Req.
(1) Ps good faith claim for more than 75k threshold controls (benefit of doubt to P)
(a) claim based on possible recovery, not probably or actual recovery (St. Paul Mercury Rule)
(b) Ct must determine whether a jury could award the amount P claimed in light of claims–> if not, AOC requirement not met
(2) Aggregation of claims
1. single P can aggregate separate claims against single D
2. Co Ps cannot aggregate, Cannot aggregate made against separate Ds
Diefenthal
Ps $50k humiliation claims not plausible, not even Worth threshold of 10k
1331 Fed Q jx
District ct shall have og jx over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties thereof
Arising under
Where to look–> Mottley well-pleaded complaint rule: fed Q must be asserted in Ps complaint (not in anticipations of Ds defenses Avitts)
What to look for–> Holmes test: Suit arises under federal law that creates the cause of action
Factors to determine whether federal jx over state law claim exists:
Extists if federal issue is:
1. necessarily raised,
2. actually disputed,
3. substantial
4. capable of resolution in fed ct without disrupting fed/state balance
SCOTUS Appellate jx
Art III § 1: judicial power of the US shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior court as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish
28 USC 1254
Sctous can review on grant of cert upon petition of any party
1257
SCOTUS can reveiw final judgments rendered by highest court in which decision may be had on grant of cert where validity of federal statute in Q, constitutionality of state law, or where any rights promised by Const. are being violated
Removal
1441–> district court mist have original jx, can only be removed to district court embracing district where state court is located, only D can remove.
Forum D rule–> if D is a citizen of the state in which action is brought, an action removable solely on basis of diversity may not be removed
1446–> (1) must file notice of removal in district court. (2) Multiple Ds have to consent to removal. (3) Filed within 30 days after receipt by D of initial pleading, or within 30 days from receipt of amended complaint. (4) Have to give notice to state ct and Ps
Diversity cases may not be removed more than one yr after commencement.
Remand
1447(c)–> (1) motion to remand on any defect other than sm jx must be raised within 30 days of filing of notice of removal
(2) any party can remand. (3) SM defects can be raised anytime
Intl Shoe analysis (Const of specific pjx)
- Minimum contacts–> entity availing themselves of benefits and protections of doing business in the forum. Contact has to be deliberate and pirposeful; must be such that D can reasonably foresee being hailed into the forum.
- Claim arises out of contact. Bristol-Myers Squibb–> D sells medicine to people across the country, who join a lawsuit in California. California has no pjx over Ds bc non-resident Ps claim did not arise from Ds contacts wtih California. Has to be adequate link between Ps harm and Ds contact with forum.
- Does not offend traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice (ie reasonable).
Burger King rule
location of parties to a K not sufficient to create contacts with forum
J McIntyre–> stream of commerce
Stream of commerce doctrine allows cts to exercise jx over a D who deliberately places his product in the forum, and the product causes harm.
Distributor exception: JMc–> stream of commerce not applicable when they give their product to a distributor bc producer cannot reasonably foresee where product might end up, UNLESS Ford–> market to forum anyways.
How to challenge pjx
- special appearance–> so you can object without consenting to pjx
- collateral attack–> allow a DJ to be entered against you; then argue judgment is void in enforcement action
- interlocutory appeal–> can raise pjx early sometimes
