Civil Procedure Class Notes
We left off with Mottley. The language “arising under” that we find in
the Constitution and in the statute can have different meanings. In particular, we read the “Well-Pleaded
Complaint Rule” into the statute.
All
that this means is that the Mottleys tried to file
their case in federal court under federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The court resolves the issue, but it goes to
the Supreme Court which says that the lower court that heard the case had no jurisdiction
to hear it in the first place. Then the Mottleys go to
Mottley is an example of federal “arising
under” jurisdiction.
Diversity
jurisdiction
This
is the oldest form of federal subject matter jurisdiction. It was included in the 1789 Judicial Act that
actually established the lower federal courts.
The roots of diversity jurisdiction are old and deep, though it is one
of the most controversial subjects the federal courts deal with.
The
Mottleys were in
We
have citizens from different states. We
have a controversy that exceeds $75,000 in value. We also have the problem of corporate
citizenship. Where does the company
live?
Do
we have $75,000 at issue? Say the Mottleys
were injured today. Say they got free
airfare on American Airlines for life.
Does this necessarily exceed $75,000? Not exactly. What are we going to do? We could gather some evidence for how much
this is worth.
The
simple matter is that your petition will simply allege that the matter
in controversy is greater than $75,000.
Make the defendants argue against jurisdiction. Your claim will be accepted on its face
unless the complaint plainly contradicts this.
What
about the “citizens of different States” requirement? The Mottleys live
in
On
the other hand, we have…
This
is one of Fairman’s absolute favorite cases.
Jean-Paul
Mas is a citizen of
Let’s
say only Jean-Paul sued Perry. It’s “
Notice
that § 1332(a)
tells us that an alien who has been admitted as a permanent resident is
considered a citizen of the state where they are domiciled.
So
if we have Jean-Paul v. Perry, we have a good lawsuit that can be heard in federal
court. Let’s add Judy. What’s wrong with that?
The
court says there is some confusion over her citizenship. She might be a citizen of
Why
does it matter where she’s from? If she’s
from
The
Rule of Complete Diversity
No
party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other
side.
The
Rule of Complete Diversity is to diversity jurisdiction as the Well-Pleaded
Complaint Rule is to federal question jurisdiction. It is a rule that comes from the
interpretation of the relevant federal law (§ 1332) rather than from the Constitution.
This
rule comes from the case of Strawbridge v. Curtis. Yeazell doesn’t make us read this dumb,
tedious case.
This
is important, because if this rule is statutory rather than constitutional,
that means that Congress can provide jurisdiction in the federal courts for
something less than complete diversity.
They have done so! They passed
the Federal Interpleader Act, which only requires “minimal
diversity”, meaning diversity between at least two of the claimants. Remember that all the Constitution says is “citizens
of different States”. This has been
interpreted differently constitutionally than it has been interpreted through
the statute.
What
could Congress do if it wanted? It could
allow federal jurisdiction over cases with minimal diversity. Fairman says that’s probably the opposite
direction from the way federal judges want to see this develop.
It
makes a huge difference whether Judy is from
How
do we figure out her citizenship? The court says that we
determine citizenship by determining domicile.
Domicile,
in turns, means (1) residence plus (2) intent to remain. Where are you? Do you intend to stay there?
What’s
wrong with
What
about
What
about
In Gordon, the court weighed certain factors for
citizenship in
Could
the court be “peeking” at the merits? In
both cases, the courts made decisions that allow plaintiffs to go forward with
lawsuits when the alternative was no alternative at all due to statute of
limitations. Also, the plaintiffs in
both cases were highly sympathetic.
There
are different facts in the two cases, and an inquiry into domicile is
essentially a factual inquiry.
Subject
matter jurisdiction is a “time bomb” inside your litigation!
Tomorrow,
we will conclude by looking at the statute a little more. Then we will get into a complicated issue in diversity
jurisdiction that the Circuits are split on when we look at Saadeh.