Civil Procedure

9/13/2011 8:04:00 AM

1809- Marshall decided that determining citizenship of a corporation would be determined by the citizenship of each corporation (if they had people who have citizenship in 12 different states; corporation has citizenship in 12 different states) makes it difficult for corporations to sue and be sued in court 1844-A corporation will be citizen of only those states in which they are incorporated made it easier to get into court because they are generally only incorporated in one state If corp. from Delaware was in court against a citizen of Delaware, only way they could get diversity and move to federal court would be to incorporate in Maryland and dissolve their corporation in Delaware 1957- (1332 C) a corporation is citizen wherever it is incorporated and the principle place of business principle place of business- only one state. o Test to determine PPB for corporation 1-Muscle test- if you look at a corporation and their business is manufacting steel, if they manufacture steel in PA even if their corporate headquarters..principle place of business is in PA..look to see where their business actually occurs o Nerve Center Where the corporate headquarters are Where the major decisions are made etc Some circuits ruled look at muscle test first and if there is not one predominant state, use nerve center test Other circuits said they dont look at muscle test, only circuit test Hertz Case o Lawsuit brought by a class of plaintiffs whom all are citizens of California o Filed in State Court o Hertz wants case to be heard in federal court because there is diversity of jurisdiction

o Plaintiffs argue that principal state of operation is newjersey (any state other than California) o California uses Muscle test for corporation cases 12%..rules that activity of hertz predominately does place of business in California therefore CA passes muscle test o Supreme court rules Muscle test is irrelevant o Look directly at where the nerve center of the corporation is

9/13/2011 8:04:00 AM Diversity Jurisdiction Described in Article 3 #2 as cases between citizens of different states The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is defined as by who the parties to the suit are, rather than the subject matter of the underlying dispute Authorizes congress to create lower federal courts and to confer jurisdiction upon them to hear the types of cases enumerated in Article 3 #2 The Meaning of State citizenship For natural persons, the courts have equated state citizenship for diversity purposes with the common law concept of domicile o A persons domicile is usually defined as the state where he has taken up residence with the intent to reside indefinitely o Indefinitely means that a persons presence in the state is open ende; that, he has no definite intent to make his home elsewhere Corporate citizenship for diversity purposes Under 1332 (c) (1) corporations are now citizens for diversity purposes of both the state where their principal place of business is located and the state in which they are incorporated. If an opposing party is a citizen of either of those states, diversity does not exist Principal place of business is where the company operates and does what it does Will most likely be where it employs the most people, conducts the most activity and has the most interaction with the public In cases where place of business is in question, courts have used

the nerve center test. o Corporate headquarters or home office from which the activities are centered The Amount In controversy requirement In article 3 #2 grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states without any requirement that a particular amount be in dispute between the parties

o Congress has always chosen to keep minor diversity cases out of the federal courts by providing that such cases can only be brought if the amount exceeds 75,000 o The St. Paul Mercury Rule A plaintiffs good faith claim for more than the amount required controls, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less Heavily weighed toward the plaintiff It only states that it is 75,000 in controversy, not that the plaintiff recovers more than 75,000 Where a single plaintiff asserts two or more claims against a single defendant, the amounts may be added together to reach the required amount A single plaintiff cannot aggregate amounts sought from other defendants, He must meet the amount requirement agains each individual Federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over the 35000 claim in a case like question #5, but only in a case against a single defendant As long as one plaintiff, others may join as co plaintiffs

9/13/2011 8:04:00 AM Any type of partnership that is subject to lawsuit. Partners are treated as individual members with their domicile Looking at it as domicile of individual partners Similar while looking at union, union is considered to be a domicile in every state that a member of the state is domiciled Limited Liability Companies o Not treated as corporations, treated as individuals o Look at individual members of the LLC and determine each one by themselves If one member of lawsuit is a corporation, then you will determine the citizenship of that corporation from 1332-C Sua Spate- Court on its own, brings it up How far courts will go for jurisdiction Rule 11 civil procedure- imposes a duty to do due diligence on parties and attorneys in lawsuit Bill will come up to do away with 1332 and repeal it in its entirety 1332-A do not want federal courts to become a small claims courts clears docket for courts how to show if the amount in controversy is met whether or not it appeals to a legal certainty that a claim is really for less in the jurisdictional amount o up to plaintiff to meet that burden T/R Transactionally related If two claims of less than 75 are combined they will meet the limit o If one claim is for an automobile accident and the other is for something else, they still meet the limit Judge will have discretion to separate the trials If plaintiff is sueing two separate defendants, cannot combine the amounts from both If one of the plaintiffs has met controvery, can add on Plaintiff cannot sue a second defendant who is less than amount after suing one defendant who is above the limit