Themis Essay 843 Flashcards
Diversity jurisdiction requires
complete diversity between the parties on different sides of the case.
Diversity is determined at
the time a case is filed.
A change in citizenship after the filing of a case will not
affect diversity jurisdiction that was in existence at the time of filing.
Personal jurisdiction is governed by:
(1) the due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) state statutes regarding jurisdiction.
The bases for in personam jurisdiction are:
(i) voluntary presence, (ii) domicile, (iii) consent, and (iv) the “long-arm” statute of the state where the federal district court sits.
District Courts are subject to the restrictions on states imposed by the
Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which limits a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the parties.
A court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless
the defendant has “minimum contacts” with the state in which the court sits (the forum state) and the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable.
A court is required to notify a party of the commencement of an action in which
his interests are at stake and provide an opportunity for the party to be heard (i.e., due process).
A federal court must generally determine personal jurisdiction as if
it were a court of the state in which it is situated.
A federal court will look to state jurisdictional statutes (i.e., long-arm statutes) to determine
if it has authority over the parties before it.
By its long-arm statute, Virginia’s courts are permitted to
acquire in personam jurisdiction over a defendant who transacts any business in Virginia; this is a single act requirement.
To maintain a diversity action:
(i) the parties to an action must be citizens of different states (i.e., there must be “complete diversity”); and (ii) the amount in controversy in the action must exceed $75,000.
A district court with jurisdiction may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over additional claims over which the court would not independently have subject matter jurisdiction where
the additional claims arise out of a “common nucleus of operative fact” such that all claims should be tried together in a single judicial proceeding.
A counterclaim may be asserted by a defendant against a plaintiff without satisfying the jurisdictional amount when
the counterclaim is compulsory.
A permissive counterclaim does not qualify for
supplemental jurisdiction.
