Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (109)

a. Citizen= Nation + Domicile at time of filing Complaint

1. Nation: National citizenship
a. Foreign people: If person is a citizen of a foreign nation, Citizenship analysis usually ends there
b. Exception: No diversity between citizens of a US State and a citizen of a foreign country who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the US (in a specific state), and are domiciled in the same state as the opposing parties

2. Domicile: State of Residence + Intent
a. When state of residence is unclear—A person remains a domiciliary of a state until he...
b. (1) Takes up residence in a different state, AND
i. *Residence alone is not enough to be domiciled
ii. Must have actually physically lived there (Cannot just buy a house and never live there)
c. (2) Intends to remain there indefinitely
i. *Look for steps taken to reside elsewhere or return to previous place
ii. Indefinite: Not leaving on a set date; Staying for undetermined amount of time
iii. Intent also determined at the time the complaint was filed
d. Factors for Residence and Intent:
i. Documentation (passport, ID, voter registration, taxes), then statements/words, etc.
ii. Address given to school/work, where someone works, driver's license, bank account, were depositions were taken, intentions, current residence, potential subletting, where person returns to (on breaks, if student), rental/ownership of home.
iii. HIGHLY factually specific + case sensitive
iv. Some facts are more relevant than others
v. ASK: Where was the last state someone lived and intended to remain?
e. Domicile: Place where a person's true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom (Mas v. Perry)
i. People only have 1 domicile
1. If there is a sufficient factual connection between the claims that have original jurisdiction and the others, then Article III allows those claims to come into court too
i. Constitutional test for determining if claims are factually related enough to quality as a case= Common Nucleus of Operative Fact

2. Supplemental Jurisdiction is PERMISSIVE
i. Discretion to dismiss supplemental claim if OJ drops out or state issues substantially predominate

3. Statutory Authority
i. 28 USC 1367(a)- General rule: EXCEPT for in diversity cases and are subject to courts discretion:
a. In any civil action the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims so related to original jurisdiction claims that they form part of the same case or controversy (CNOF or T/O) under Article III
1. Supplemental jurisdiction also includes joinder or intervention of additional parties
ii. 28 USC 1367(b)-Diversity exception SOLELY:
a. Allows some joined Ps with amounts LESS than the AIC to come in under SJ (as long as original P met the AIC)
b. In any civil action the district courts have original jurisdiction over because of diversity, the district court SHALL NOT have supplemental jurisdiction over:
1. Claims made by plaintiff against persons made defendants under FRCP 14 (impleader), 19 (joinder of necessary or indispensable parties), 20 (permissive joinder), and 24 (intervention), or
2. Claims made by persons proposed to be joined as Plaintiff under FRCP 19, or seeking to intervene as Plaintiffs under 24, or...
3. When exercising supplemental jurisdiction would destroy/be inconsistent with diversity (it is inconsistent with jurisdictional requirements of § 1332-diversity)
c. Reason for 1367(b): You cannot pretend that you are just doing "pendant party" jurisdiction here, because if the parties destroy diversity, you are destroying the complete diversity of the case
1. If party wants to add non-diverse defendant, it is destroying diversity in a back-handed way. Cannot do that.
d. ONLY APPLIES IN PURE DIVERSITY CASES
1. Existence of a federal question rules out this exception
iii. 28 USC 1367(c) Discretion to Decline SJ Exception: The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if one of these 4 circumstances applies:
a. Supplemental claim presents novel or complex issue of state law,
1. Gives state courts the first crack at new or complex issue of state law
b. Supplemental claim substantially predominates over original one,
1. Real claim is a state claim and the federal claim is minor/tenuous; or there is a state substantive claim that has a minor federal theory involved
c. The original jurisdiction claim(s) have been dismissed (generally depends on what stage of the case), OR
1. Gibbs case
d. In exceptional circumstances, with other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction (catch-all; if court can explain a really good reason that will qualify for getting rid of supplemental jurisdiction, go ahead)
a. Does jurisdiction comply with Due Process 3 elements?

1. Does the COA arise from Ds contacts with the forum?
i. Look for either: Specific jurisdiction (YES COA), OR General jurisdiction (NO COA)
a. To decide "arises", either: But For test OR Evidence Test

2. Has the D purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting business in the forum (i.e. did they do business in the forum and get some benefit?)
i. Specific Jurisdiction= low threshold
a. D had minimum contacts with the forum, cause of action arose out of those contacts, AND it must be fair/reasonable (see below)
b. D must deliberately engage in activities or the "stream of commerce" flowing into the forum state (2 ways for specific jur.)
1. Mere foreseeability is NOT enough
ii. General Jurisdiction = high threshold
a. D has continuous and systematic contacts with forum state (entities) or must live there (people)... rendering it "at home" there
b. The cause of action did not arise in that state, but the Ds contacts with the forum are so continuous and systematic that it would be reasonable for there to be PJ over D in that forum
c. Unilateral activity of someone else - "mere purchases" and "brief" training does not count

3. Does it satisfy "Fair Play and Substantial Justice"?
i. In other words, is the exercise of jurisdiction "fair and reasonable?"
ii. Consider (from Worldwide Volkswagon):
a. Burden on defendant
b. Forum state interest
c. Plaintiff's interest in a convenient forum
d. Interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies
e. Shared interests of several states in furthering substantive social policies
iii. Is it fair and reasonable to make them come into court to defend themselves?
a. Does the company normally sell in that state?
b. Even if contacts occurred in the past, is it fair to sue them there now based on those contacts? Don't want the company to pick up and move if it thinks it will be sued there