The Subject Matter Of The Federal Courts - Diversity Of Citizenship

Front 1

The Subject Matter of the Federal Courts - Diversity of Citizenship

Back 1

1) Mas v. Perry (1974)
2) AFA Tours v. Whitchurch (1991)

Front 2

Complete Diversity

Back 2

no diversity jurisdiction if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D

Front 3

Federal Courts Improvement Act (1996)

Back 3

raised the amount in controversy requirment to $75,000

Front 4

Mas v. Perry (COA 1974)

Back 4

1) to be a citizen of a state within the meaning of section 1332
- a natural person must be both a citizen of the US and a domiciliary of that state
- for diversity purposes citizenship means domicile (mere residences in not sufficient)
2) changing your domicile requires:
- taking up residence in a different state, and
- intention to stay there

Front 5

A persons domicile

Back 5

the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and princilple establishment to which he has the intention of returning whenever is absent therefrom

Front 6

Corporation is a citizen of:

Back 6

1) the state(s) in which it is incorporated; and
2) the state in which it has its principle place of business

Front 7

Tests for corporations citizenship

Back 7

1) Nerve Center Test
- the locus of corporate decision-making authority and overall control
2) Corporate Activities Test
- greater weight is attached to the locatio nof a corporations production or service activities
3) Total Activities Test (Hybrid)
- provides a realistic, flexible and nonformalistic approach through a balancing of all relevant factors

Front 8

AFA Tours v. Whitchurch (COA 1991)

Back 8

1) the sum claimed by the P controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith
2) it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal
- can be measured by P's losses or D's profits
- NY allows punitive damages to be factored in if D's conduct was sufficiently gross and wanton
- cna look at potential harm if an injunction is sought to protect secrets

Front 9

Amount in controversy and multiple parties

Back 9

1) one P can aggregate all of her claims against one D even when those claims share nothing besides the identity of the parties
2) multiple Ps who join together in one suit may not aggregate their claims if the claims are separate and distinct
3) multiple Ps may aggregate their claims only when they seek to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest
- if P were to fail to collect his share, the remaining Ps would collect a larger share

Front 10

Approaches for determining amount in controversy

Back 10

1) plaintiff viewpoint rule
- value to the P
2) party seeking to invoke jurisdiction viewpoint
3) either viewpoint rule
- financial results to either party which the judgment would directly produce

Front 11

Judicially created exceptions to diversity jursidiction

Back 11

even if the requirments of diversity jurisdiction are met, a federal court generally will decline to hear probate matters and domestic-relations cases and instead dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction