SMJ

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

(Unwaivable - Can Be Raised at Any Stage)

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Diversity Jurisdiction

Individuals

Gordon v. Steele

AIC

Diefenthal v. C.A.B.

Removal

Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.

DOMICILE TEST:

(1) resided with (2) the intent to remain indefinitely.

Residence requirement satisfied easily – e.g., staying overnight

Intent-to-remain-indefinitely requirement is satisfied if residence is on open-ended basis, without intent to leave at definite time or upon definite occurrence

No loss of old domicile until acquisition of a new domicile, even if no intent to return to old domicile

Timing: Courts looks to a party’s citizenship at the time a lawsuit is commenced

BOP: Party asserting to show “by convincing evidence” that diversity exists

Complete Diversity

Mas v. Perry

Strawbridge v. Curtiss (U.S. 1806): No (D) can be a citizen of the same state as any (P).

Determination of citizenship controlled by federal law, not State law.

Citizenship is determined at the time complaint is filed; subsequent changes don’t matter.

Burden of pleading diversity is on party invoking court’s subject

matter jurisdiction.

To be a state citizen for purposes of DJ, a person must be a citizen of the US and be domiciled in a state.

For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.

Most courts hold that a person’s domicile is the last state in which she

resided with the intent to remain indefinitely.

A person may acquire a new domicile only by: (a) taking up residence in a different domicile with (b) the intention to remain there INDEFINITELY

Corporations

Hertz Corp v. Friend

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)

authorizes federal district courts to hear diversity cases which includes a minimum AIC requirement of $75K.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)

A corp shall be deemed a citizen of “every state and foreign state by which it has been incorporated AND of the State or foreign state where it has its principal

place of business.”

The Nerve Center Test

Locus of corporate decision-making authority and overall control

Unincorporated

Citizenship of all members of association

Diversity of Citizenship in Cases

Involving Foreign Citizens

Article III, Section 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2)

State Citizen v. a Foreign Citizen (Alien) or vice versa

• Unless: Foreign Citizen is not a permanent resident alien

domiciled in the same state as the State Citizen.

• Yes: P (Tennessee) v. D (Italy)

• Yes: P (France) and P (Mississippi) v. D (Louisiana)

• No: P (TN) v. D (citizen of Spain living in Tennessee), if D is

in U.S. as a permanent resident

• NOTE: Person may be a citizen of the US without being a

citizen of any state. If so, diversity SMJ not available.

St. Paul Mercury: “sum claimed by (P) controls if the claim is made in good faith.

It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really far

less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.”

“In sum, the party invoking the court's jurisdiction has the

burden of establishing the factual basis of his claim by pleading

or affidavit. This allows the court to test its jurisdiction

without requiring the expense and burden of a full trial on the

merits.”

Measured at the time the complaint is mfiled

Punitive damages count towards AIC

Aggregation

(P) can aggregate claims against a single (D), even where claims

are unrelated

Single P cannot aggregate claims against multiple Ds, unless Ds are jointly

liable to P.

Joint tortfeasor Exception: Two or more (D) whose collective

negligence in a single accident/event causes damages to another person.

Multiple Ps cannot aggregate unless there is a “single title or right in which

they have a common undivided interest.”

Examples of exception: Joint ownership of same property or same conduct

by the same employer.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley

Only look to (P) properly pleaded claim, not any defenses or counterclaims that may be asserted by (D).

federal court can only grant federal question jurisdiction over a case if the complaint clearly presents a federal law issue.

Where to look!

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Holmes Creation Test

A suit “arises under the law that creates the COA.”

Mottley: Both right to sue and remedy being sought arise

from state contract law and So no federal SMJ even if defenses under fed law.

What to look for!

Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.

Smith Exception

A federal court may assert F?J when it the resolution of (P)'s state law claim NECESSARILY DEPENDS on the determination of an issue of federal law.

In Smith, the plaintiff could only prove his state

law claim by ESTABLISHING A POINT OF FEDERAL

LAW.

Grable Standard

“Does (1) state law claim necessarily raise a

fed issue

(2) actually disputed

and (3) substantial

(4) which a federal forum may entertain

without disturbing any congressionally

approved balance of federal and state judicial

responsibilities”?

F? does NOT attach every time a (P) has to prove some federal issue.

Gunn v. Minton

"Arising Under" Jurisdiction

Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is:

(1) Necessarily raised;

(2) Actually disputed;

(3) Substantial; AND

(4) Capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the

federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Where a federal court would have had original

jurisdiction had plaintiff filed the complaint there.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION!

Jurisdiction must be apparent from the (P)

well-pleaded complaint

If the case could not have been originally filed in

federal court, the federal court must remand the

case back to state court.

(D) takes (P) case from state

court and moves it to federal court (28

U.S.C. § 1441)

The procedures for removal are defined by

28 U.S.C. § 1446

The procedures for post-removal are defined

by 28 U.S.C. § 1447

Removability is determined by the allegations of the complaint.

Cannot be made removable by removal petition or subsequent pleadings by (D).

(P) cannot avoid federal jurisdiction by “artfully pleading” (to omit federal claims)

(P) choice to proceed exclusively under state law does not give rise to federal jurisdiction.

28 USC 1441(b)(2) a case based on DJ may not be removed if any (D) is a

citizen of the state in which the case was filed.

General rule: All Defendants must join the removal petition

unless a D has a “separate and independent claim.” (28 U.S.C

§1446(b)(2)(A))

(P) may NOT remove a case (28 U.S.C §1441(a))

(D) can remove within 30 days of receiving the

initial/amended pleading or being served process (28

U.S.C § 1446(b)(1) and (3))

30 days from date that case becomes removable

Case is removable to the district court embracing the place

where such action is pending (28 U.S.C §1441(a)).

Remand

Essentially, sends a case back to the state

court from which it was removed

Governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447

Within 30 days from date of removal

Remand orders are NOT appealable, unless

they are a civil rights case (28 U.S.C. §

1447(d))