Wednesday Aug 28 subject matter jurisdiction federal subject

Wednesday, Aug. 28

subject matter jurisdiction

federal subject matter jurisdiction diversity and alienage jurisdiction

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend …to Controversies …between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States…and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Sec. 1332. - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; . . (e) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

distinguish – constitutional scope of diversity/alienage from scope of 1332

what does it mean to be a citizen of a State?

let’s start with human beings what does it take for a human being to be a citizen of Virginia?

Günter is a German national domiciled in Virginia is he a citizen of Virginia?

Günter sues François, a Frenchman domiciled in New York under New York law could Congress send this case to federal court?

what is domicile?

only one domicile (for diversity purposes) always a domicile – you do not relinquish old one until you establish a new one

Gordon v. Steele, 376 F. Supp. 575 (W. D. Pa. 1974)

when did cause of action arise? what was her domicile then?

burden of proof is on…? who decides the factual question of domicile?

under both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, Gordon is domiciled in Pennsylvania does that matter?

domicile of choice

intent to remain indefinitely test

Gordon intends to remain indefinitely in Idaho she leaves for Idaho but gets into an accident in Illinois on the way, remains there for recovery domicile?

would it matter that she had visited Idaho before the accident?

intent to remain indefinitely v. intent to make it your home how does Gordon come out under each test?

what if she intended to go to Colorado after graduation? what is her domicile?

assume that after the litigation is over Susan decides that after school she will return to Pennsylvania where is her domicile immediately after her decision?

Michael Green, a Californian, moved to Virginia to take a job at William and Mary Law School he intends to return to California on his 65 th birthday

what evidence did the court look to?

not residence!

28 U. S. C. § 1332(a) complete diversity complete alienage

Examples: is there federal SMJ under 28 USC 1332(a)? assumptions: - jurisdictional minimum is met - action is brought in federal court by the plaintiff - foreign national is domiciled in his own country (unless otherwise stated)

Californian sues a German (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties;

Californian sues a New Yorker and a Californian (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

does it make sense that there is no diversity under 1332(a) for such a case?

German sues a Frenchman (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

New Yorker sues Californian and Frenchman (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

A New Yorker and a German sue a Californian and a German (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

Californian sues a French citizen admitted for permanent residency in the United States who is domiciled in California (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state. . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

German sues French citizen admitted for permanent residency in the United States who is domiciled in California (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

German sues French citizen admitted for permanent residency in the United States who is domiciled in California could Congress send this case to federal court?

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend …to Controversies …between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States…and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Californian sues Elizabeth Taylor, an American national domiciled in France (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

- Dred Scott, a slave owned in Missouri, is taken by his master to Wisconsin Territory (a free territory) - Scott lives there for a while and then returns with his master to Missouri. - Sanford, a New York citizen becomes Scott’s master - Scott sues Sanford in federal court to establish that his time in a free territory had made him free under state law - diversity jurisdiction?

A German sues a Frenchman and a New Yorker (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

A citizen of DC sues a Virginian under Virginia state law

1332(e) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

is 1332(e) constitutional?

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend …to Controversies …between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States…and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.