This is an extract of our Subject Matter Jurisdiction document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure Outlines collection written by the top tier of Harvard Law School students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Relevant Rules a. U.S. Constitution - Article III SS2 (See Below) b. 28 U.S.C. SS1331: Federal Question c. 28 U.S.C. SS1332: Diversity of Citizenship; Amount in Controversy; Costs d. 28 U.S.C. SS1367: Supplemental Jurisdiction e. 28 U.S.C. SS1441: Removal of Civil Actions f. 28 U.S.C. SS1442: Federal Officers or Agencies sued or Prosecuted g. 28 U.S.C. SS1443: Civil Rights Cases h. 28 U.S.C. SS1446: Procedure for removal of civil actions i. 28 U.S.C. SS1447: Procedure after Removal generally j. 28 U.S.C. SS1448: Process after removal
2. Constitution Article III SS2: "9-item Menu" For Federal SM JD a. "The judicial Power shall extend...
i. to all Cases, in Law and Equity arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ii. to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; iii. to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; iv. to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; v. to Controversies between two or more States; vi. between a State and Citizens of another State, vii. between Citizens of different States, ["Minimal Diversity"]
viii. between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, ix. and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
3. Diversity Jurisdiction a. NOTE: Article III more broad than 28 U.S.C. SS1332 i. Complete Diversity requirement (Strawbridge) ii. Amount in Controversy Requirement (SS1332) b. Diversity: Is Washington, DC a "State"?
i. SS1332(e): "The word "States", as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." ii. See National Mut. Ins. Co. of D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., U.S. 1949 (split court decision, SS1332(e) is OK.) c. Complete Diversity Rule i. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, U.S. 1806, CJ John Marshall (Supp. 41)
ii. Complete Diversity for federal diversity SM JD under section 11 of Judiciary Act of 1789 (Now 28 USC SS 1332.) iii. RULE: Complete Diversity Across the "v." iv. Policy Reasons:
1. For Federal Removal, generally: in-state bias against out-of-state party a. If in-state on both sides, might not have bias.
2. -> Good mechanical rule for keeping cases out of federal court v. Class Actions: SS1332(d) exempts complete diversity in certain class actions
1. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: can usually be brought in a federal court when there is just minimal diversity, such that any plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from any defendant. vi. Assignee Clause: Can't assign debt, etc., to a third party to create diversity for SMJD. See 28 U.S.C.
1359. vii. Executor Rule: Executor of estate from a different state than dead person does NOT create diversity. (Post Piper v. Reno). d. Diversity: Foreign Nationals & SS1332 i. Long-term permanent residents count as citizens of the state in which they are domiciled. (See 1332(a)(2)) (See, e.g., Mas v. Perry) ii. Foreign aliens and complete diversity:
1. Ruhrgas (U.S. 1999, CB 854 N.1): No complete diversity if aliens on both sides of the case.
2. BUT SS1332(a)(3): SM JD when "citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties."
3. Does complete diversity apply to 1332(a) (3)?
4. Hypos: a. Definitely Not OK: i. FR v. UK. ii. NY + French v. UK b. Probably Not OK (But not really clear): i. NY + French v. MA + UK c. OK: i. NY + FR (NY-LPR) v. FR e. Diversity: Domicile i. Generally:
1. "The place at which a person has been physically present and that the person regards as home; a person's true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere" Black's Law Dictionary
2. Where you've (a) moved there (b) with the intent of staying permanently. Remain domiciled at last domicile until switched (e.g., students not domiciled school; prisoners not domiciled prison).
3. NOTE: Take "snapshot" of diversity at time of suit filed. ii. Person
1. Mas v. Perry (5th Cir. 1974. CB 851). [FR +
MS v. LA = OK.]
a. Facts: Frenchman marries a Mississippi woman in Mississippi; both studying at LSU. Sues a Louisiana landlord for a two-way mirror in rented apt. b. Held: Diversity met. Mr. Mas citizen of France. Mrs. Mas resident of MS, because she grew up there and hadn't changed domicile. c. Professor Note: Some legal realism in this case. Maybe Mrs. Mas a resident of Louisiana? No intent to return to MS. iii. Corporation
1. Any state in which it is incorporated; and
2. "the State where it has its principal place of business." a. "Total activity" test: "nerve center" test (where the activities of the corporation are controlled and directed) and "locus of operations test" (where corporation's actual physical operations are).
3. See, e.g., Diaz-Rodriquez v. Pep Boys Corp. (1st Cir 2005, CB 859) (holding that a Delaware corporation, also incorporated in PA, with HQ in Philadelphia, but 100% of day-to-day business w/in Puerto Rico counts as PR citizen). iv. Other Organization
1. Generally, evaluated like people, not corporations.
2. E.g., a partnership is a citizen of any state in which a partner is. f. Diversity: Amount in Controversy i. Increases over time. $500 in 1789. $75k in 1996. ii. Has to "exceed." 28 U.S.C. SS1332. iii. Each p has to meet required amount. (But see Allapattah) iv. However, recovering less than Amount in Controversy is OK.
1. "The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal. The inability of the plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction..." St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co v. Red Cab Co. (US 1938, CB 861)
4. Federal Question SM JD a. NOTE: Article III broader than application of 28 U.S.C. SS
1331 b. Fed Q.: Well-pleaded complaint rule i. Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley (SC 1908, CB 865) ii. Facts: RR gives free passes for life as settlement for a crash. RR can't renew passes because of a new Federal law. p complaint NOT mention new law - simply sues for the passes. iii. Rule: Federal question must be apparent from the face of the p's well-pleaded complaint.
1. Plaintiff's complaint must "show that it is based upon those [federal] laws or the Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States." iv. Policy Considerations
1. NYT v. Sullivan (important 1A libel case) - was brought under state law. Federal law defense, implicating Constitutional Law, not enough. Has to appeal after state supreme court.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines.