DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Statutes:
 CONSTITUTION: Article III, Section 2, Clause I
 28 USC § 1332

Case: Gordon v. Steele

Rule of law: State citizenship is dependent on the party or parties’ DOMICILE, which is residence
with the intent to remain “indefinitely”—no definite plans to leave

Case: Mas v. Perry

Rule of law: A person does not lose their domicile if they move to another state temporarily and
do not plan to stay there permanently.
 Complete diversity: Can’t have same state on opposing sides of a case

Case: Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Rule of law: “Nerve center” test: A corporation’s principal place of business, for federal diversity
purposes, refers to the single place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control,
and coordinate the company’s activities
o 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c ) interpreted in this case

AMOUNT-IN-CONTROVERSY
Case: Diefenthal v. C.A.B.
Rule of law: While claims made in good faith by the plaintiff will generally determine the court’s
jurisdiction, the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction also has the burden of establishing the
factual basis of the claim.
 There must be a legal and factual basis for a recovery of the required amount.

Other rules about amount-in-controversy:

 You can’t add claims from different plaintiffs
 Same thing but w/ defendants
 Can’t have claims from different plaintiffs against different defendant
 You CAN add different claims brought by same plaintiff against same defendant
 Piggyback rule: once one plaintiff has satisfied the amount in controversy, additional
plaintiffs can join the suit w/ claims against the defendant for less than threshold
amount

FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION

Statutes:
 Constitution: Article III, § 2
 Statute: 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Case: Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley

Rule of law: A suit can be brought in federal court only when the plaintiff’s statement of his
own cause of actions shows that it is based upon federal laws or the Constitution
 Well-pleaded complaint rule: a court will only consider the plaintiff’s properly pleaded
claim, not any defenses of counterclaims that might be asserted by the defendant
 Holmes Test: a suit “arises under the law that creates the cause of action”
 For declaratory judgments, ask whether the case would arise under federal law if
brought by the party who would ordinarily be the plaintiff seeking a coercive judgment
(invert the parties)
 The allegations necessary to state a proper claim for relief must rely on federal law!

Cases that don’t pass the Holmes Test:

Case: Gunn v. Minton
Rule of law: A state court’s resolution of a hypothetical question of patent law is not substantial
enough to mandate federal review
 All claims, both state and federal, are thought of as a single dispute, so as long as one
claim gives the federal court a basis for jurisdiction, the court may hear all claims that
arise from that dispute
RULE (Grable Test): The federal issue must be (1) necessarily raised; (2) actually disputed; (3)
substantial; and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state
balance approved by Congress

REMOVAL
Statutes:
 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Federal removal statutes authorize defendants sued in state court to remove certain cases to
federal court.

Case: Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.

Rule of law: A lawsuit may only be removed from state court to federal court if the federal
court would have had original jurisdiction over the claim.
 Removal statute bars removal of a diversity case if any defendant is from the forum
state
o § 1441(b)(2): diversity cases “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest
properly joined and served is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought”

 Who can remove? Only a defendant

 When must the case be removed? Must remove to federal court within 30 days of
receiving the initial pleading or being served with process in the action. If they don’t,
they waive their right to remove
 Where can the case be removed to? To a federal court that is the “district
court…embracing the place where such action is pending.”
  Must specify the grounds for removal, and the case is automatically transferred. Up to
the judge then to bring up federal question jurisdiction
 A plaintiff may move to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, but
any other reasons must be raised in 30 days

PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Statutes:
o Due Process Clauses of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
o Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

Case: Pennoyer v. Neff

Rule of law: No person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless they voluntarily appear in
the court, are found within the state, or have property in the state that the court has attached.
o Not the rule anymore

 A court must have subject matter jurisdiction AND personal jurisdiction

Case: Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington

Rule of law: For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a
judgment in personam, due process requires that he have certain minimum contracts with the
forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
 A judge must focus on the defendant’s contacts with a forum, not simply on whether
the defendant is present or doing business there
 The plaintiff’s claim just arise out of the particular contact that the defendant had in the
state
 Also dictated by state long-arm statutes

SPECIFIC IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION

Case: McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

Rule of law: A state court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state company if the company has
substantial connections with the state.
 Via Hanson: “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant
PURPOSEFULLY AVAIL[ED] ITSELF of the privilege of conducting activities within the
forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”

Case: World-Wise Volkswagen v. Woodson

Rule of law: Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of
personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with
the forum state; specific personal jurisdiction is not available unless the defendant has had
deliberate, voluntary contacts with the forum state.
Specific jurisdiction checklist:
(1) Does the defendant have contacts with the forum?
(2) Does the plaintiff’s claim arise out of those contacts?
(3) Would the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant be fair and reasonable?

Case: Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Rule of law: When determining “minimum contacts” requirement for personal jurisdiction, the
court must look to (1) the purposefully directed activities of the defendant toward the forum
state and (2) whether the harms arising or relating to those activities are the cause of the
litigation.
***a weighing of factors (see 9/12 written notes for those factors)

Case: Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Ct. of Ca.

Rule of law: Under the Due Process Clause, a foreign business’s awareness that its products will
reach a state within the U.S. in the stream of commerce does not satisfy the minimum contacts
needed for the forum state to exercise personal jurisdiction over that business.
 Narrowest rationale: in a stream of commerce fact pattern, a single isolate sale in the
forum is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction

The Zippo Test: an early internet personal jurisdiction case that attempted to translate “virtual”
contacts into the existing contacts into the existing geographically based contacts framework
 If the defendant conducted activities through an interactive website, it could be subject
to personal jurisdiction in a distant state
 Purely passive website that only convey info would not subject a defendant to personal
jurisdiction in a distant state, even if many people form the state visit the website.

Case: Jackson v. Cal. Newspapers Partnership

Rule of law: A website may give rise to specific jurisdiction over a defendant in a distant state,
but only if the site is sufficiently interactive to satisfy due process
 Determining factor is whether the website owner intentionally directed electronic
activity into the state and whether that activity gave rise to the cause of action.

GENERAL JURISDICTION
 Allows courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant for claims having
nothing to do with the defendant’s contacts in the forum state; contacts must be MUCH
MORE extensive

Case: Daimler AG v. Baumann

Rule of law: A court may assert general jurisdiction over a corporation when the corporation’s
affiliation with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation
essentially at home in the state.
 Place of incorporation and principal place of business will nearly ALWAYS be the only
place where a corporation is at home with very rare exceptions
  For individuals, they must be domiciled in the forum state to be subject to general
jurisdiction there.

Case: Bristol Meyers Squib

Rule of law: A court can only assert either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction; can’t
assert both

Rule 4(k)(2)(A): federal courts adopt the long-arm statutes of whatever state the court is in

NOTICE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

Statutes:
 Rule 4(c )-(n)
 Rule 6(a)
 Due Process Clauses

Case: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank

Rule of law: lays out the “constitutional floor” for adequate methods of service of process;
under Due Process, people are entitled to service of process “reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them
an opportunity to present their objections.”
 Notice must “reasonably convey required information” and “must afford a reasonable
time . . . to make their appearance.”

 After waiving service, you have 60 days to file he answer w/ the court—always count
out days

VENUE
Statutes:
 28 U.S.C. § 1391
 No constitutional basis; only statutory

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) defines which federal districts are proper venues:

Case: Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise

Rule of law: As long as what happened in the district was an important or substantial part of the
sequence of events of “historical predicates” giving rise to the case, venue is proper in that
district

 Proper venue can be anywhere in the state where a corporation is incorporated