Jurisdiction

I. Personal
A. Relates to over whom a court may exercise jurisdiction, which relates
to whether or not a party may be bound by a given court’s judgment.

B. We will cover this extensively, starting in the next few days.

II. Subject Matter—the only kind of jurisdiction we have discussed in detail so

far; for our purposes, this relates to whether a case may be tried in the federal
courts, which have limited jurisdiction, or whether it must be tried in the state
courts, which have general jurisdiction. The presumption is against federal
jurisdiction; the party seeking to move the matter into federal court has an
affirmative duty to show that the case belongs in federal court for one or more
of the reasons discussed below.

A. Diversity Jurisdiction
1. Arises out of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity. . . between citizens of different states.”

2. Codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1): “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. . . citizens of different
States.”

3. Complete Diversity
a. Strawbridge v. Curtiss illustrated the complete diversity
requirement, meaning that for federal jurisdiction to be
proper under § 1332(a)(1), “each distinct interest should
be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to
sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts.”

b. But the complete diversity requirement is not absolute.

Congress may introduce exceptions to this general rule,
as it did with the Federal Interpleader Act (1917), the
Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (relating to
accidents causing 75+ deaths) (2002) and the Class
Action Fairness Act (relating to class actions with claims
exceeding $5,000,000) (2005).

c. Thus, in some instances, only minimal diversity is

required, meaning that when so authorized by Congress,
federal diversity jurisdiction may exist “so long as any
two adverse parties are not co-citizens.” Tashire. Because
 it has been held that Congress possesses the authority to
create exceptions to the general requirement of complete
diversity, it is now understood that that Constitution’s
reference to “citizens of different States” refers only to
minimal diversity.

d. Nonetheless, instances where only minimal diversity is

required are the exception to the general rule that
complete diversity is required.

4. Determining Citizenship
a. Individuals—are citizens of the state in which they are
domiciled. One’s domicile need not be the same as one’s
residence. A change in domicile can only be effected by
a) taking up residence in a different domicile (objective)
b) with the intention to remain there (subjective). In order
to be a citizen of a state, one must be a citizen of the
United States. Mas v. Perry.

b. Corporations—have dual citizenship, determined by state

of incorporation and principal place of business. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). These states of citizenship must be
alleged with specificity in the complaint in order to earn
the right for the matter to be heard in federal court.
Randazzo v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. There can be
one and only one principal place of business. The
subjective determination of a corporation’s principal
place of business is often challenging. See J.A. Olson Co.
v. City of Winona. Among other things, courts look to
the “nerve center” of the corporation and the “place of
activity.” Each Circuit has its own test.

c. Limited Liability Companies—deemed to be citizens of

each state of which any of its members are citizens.
Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place
L.L.C.

d. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, what matters is the

citizenship of the parties as of the date of the case’s
filing. Subsequent changes of citizenship do not destroy
(or create) diversity jurisdiction. Mas v. Perry.

5. Alienage
a. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2): “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. . . citizens
of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.”

b. This type of federal jurisdiction also arises out of Article

III, Section 2: “The judicial power shall extend to all
cases, in law and equity. . . between a state, or the
citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

c. It remains unclear whether the following provision is

Constitutional: “For the purposes of this section. . . an
alien admitted to the United States for permanent
residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which
such alien is domiciled.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Literal
interpretation would confer federal jurisdiction over a
suit between two resident aliens, without a citizen on
either side, which would violate the well-settled
Constitutional principle that federal courts do not have
jurisdiction over disputes between aliens. See Montalet v.
Murray, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 46, 47 (1807) (“[T]he courts
of the United States have no jurisdiction of cases between
aliens.”).

B. Federal Question Jurisdiction

1. “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Also arises out of Constitution, Article III, Section 2: “The

judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,
and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
authority.”

3. Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule—in order for there to be

federal question jurisdiction, the federal issue supporting
jurisdiction must be essential to the claim. Louisville &
Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley.

4. A legitimate federal question raised in a counterclaim or as an

affirmative defense does nothing to alter subject matter
jurisdiction, which arises out of the substance of the
complaint. Holmes Group v. Vornado.

5. Well-Pleaded Complaint rule looks to the heart of what the

dispute between the parties is, not whether or not any federal
issues might arise over the course of the litigation.
 6. Well-Pleaded Complaint rule arose out of the statute granting
the federal district courts jurisdiction over federal question
cases (28 U.S.C. § 1331) rather than the Constitutional grant
of jurisdiction to federal courts quoted above. This is why the
same case can be deemed a state matter in terms of original
jurisdiction, but a federal matter in terms of judicial review
(e.g., Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley).

C. Amount in Controversy
1. Threshold sum (now $75,000) must be met in request for
relief in good faith. The sole fact the amount of recovery is
below the threshold amount does not retroactively render
diversity jurisdiction invalid. “It must appear to a legal
certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional
amount to justify dismissal. The inability of the plaintiff to
recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does
not show his bad faith or oust his jurisdiction….” Mas v.
Perry.

D. Generally
1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time,
by any party (including the judge, sua sponte).

2. A federal court does not have the discretion to exercise

jurisdiction over a case it is not authorized to hear. Doing so is
not “simply wrong, but indeed an unconstitutional invasion of
the powers reserved to the states.” Randazzo v. Eagle-Picher
Industries, Inc.

3. Subject matter jurisdiction either exists or does not exist at the

time of filing. Parties may not consent to or otherwise alter
subject matter