ESTABLISHING Citizen of a state for purposes of JURISDICTION

§1332:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (or -Must be a US Citizen motion to dismiss for
lack thereof) -Must be a Domiciliary of the State
-A person’s true and permanent home
Orig. Jurisdiction= Diver. Or where he intends on returning to when FQ. Once you have one
of those, then you can get it is absent from supplemental. (i.e. if
original claim is on diversity, -Change of domicile only by 1) taking it must meet the entire
$75K requirement itself) up residence in a different domicile
with the 2) intent to stay there (mas v.
Diversity of Citizenship 28 U.S.C. § 1332
at time of filing complaint
a) Amount in dispute > $75,000 AND A single P may aggregate claims against a single D to
1) Citizens of different states (def), meet amount req OR
2) Citizens of a state and a foreign state (except
if perm. Resident alien  US Citizen domiciled abroad is diverse from no and domiciled in same
one
state as other party);  Aliens have no domicile, cannot have alien on OR
3) Citizens of different both sides of litigation- but they are diverse states and of which
citizens of foreign from us citizens states are additional
parties; OR  Permanent resident alien is domiciled in that
Corporate Citizenship
4) Citizens of a foreign Where it is incorporated and where it has its state as plaintiff [per
§1603a] and citizens principal place of business. (May be foreign) of a state or different
states
Federal Question § 1441 Removal from State to Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 Fed Court
Any civil action that arises  Cannot be removed solely on the under the constitution,
laws, or treaties of the basis of diversity if any D is a citizen United States
-Essential Federal of the state of the state suit Element must appear on
the face of the  Case can be non-removable at the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint [Louisville & outset of litigation but then become Nashville RR. v. Mottley]
removable along the way
Article 3 of the US Constitution
Any civil action affecting Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule ambassadors, other
public ministers and If the plaintiff’s complaint is created consuls, cases of
admiralty and maritime by federal law, plaintiff can bring it jurisdiction, controversies
to which the US is a party, into court. Cannot raise anticipated controversies between
two or more states, between defense for federal question a state and citizens of
another state, between [Mottley] citizens of the same state
claiming lands under grants of different states
-In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which
a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction

SUPPLEMENTAL Step 1: Determine if there is a JURISDICTION

constitutional basis
 ALWAYS consider and talk-out if there is to hear the claim
pursuant
an independent basis for to Article 3 (common
SMJ first,
nucleus)-Consider
ALWAYS talk-out if 1367(b) applies, andfacts that are NOT
ALWAYS consider that 1367(c)
common says that
as well
the case does not HAVE to be heard
 Once the court has Step 2: Determine if it falls within original jurisdiction,
all other claims can §1367 and is not an exception under fall under
supplemental jurisdiction
 Supp Jurisdiction on federal question claim= Pendent Jurisdiction
  Pendent Juris. is a doctrine of discretion, it is not a right-justification lies in
considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants
(Gibbs)
 If a state claim predominates it can be dismissed
 Fed claims dismissed before trial- state claims should be as well (Gibbs)
Supplemental Jurisdiction § 1367
UMW v. Gibbs: The supplemental claim must arise under the “common nucleus of operative
facts” as the federal claim.
Under §1367, the district courts may decline to
1367(b) Exceptions
exercise supplemental No Supp Jurisdiction (need DIV or FQ) if
jurisdiction if:
1. Claim raises a novel Original Claim is based solely on diversity or complex issue of
state law over claims by plaintiffs made parties under:
2. Claim substantially  Rule 14 (third-party defendants) predominates over the
claims over which the  Rule 19 (mandatory joinder of party) district court has original
 Rule 20 (permissive joinder of party)
jurisdiction
 Rule 24 (intervention)
3. The district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction
4. Other exceptional circumstances

SERVICE/NOTICE (or motion to dismiss for lack of/improper)

Must meet both:
a. Rule 4(e)
1. Pursuant to state law of which the district court is located, OR
2. Personally delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint, OR
3. Leaving copies of the summons and complaint and the individuals house with someone
of suitable age and discretion, OR
4. Delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent authorized by
appointment or law to receive such
b. Constitutional Standard- 14th Amendment Due Process (Mullane v. Central Hanover
Question)
a. “must be reasonably certain to inform those affected” OR
b. Form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than another method
Problem with actual notice?

PERSONAL JURISDICTION (or motion to dismiss by D for improper)

Jurisdiction in State X over Defendant if:
1. Defendant is a resident of state X (Pennoyer v. Neff)

If not a resident of State X:

2. Long Arm Statute: Does the state have a long-arm statute to capture the out-of-state
defendant? If so, is it satisfied? AND
3. Find and personally serve defendant in state X (TAG- reaffirmed in Burnham v. Superior)
OR
4. Defendant “appears” (responds/answers to the complaint or consents) [Pennoyer] OR
5. Minimum [International Shoe] & Purposeful [WW Volkswagon] contacts that establish
either:
a. General Jurisdiction: Systematic & Pervasive contacts, may be sued for anything
[Goodyear Tire & Helicopteros]. Consent, Residence and TAG gives you GJ
b. Specific Jurisdiction: No consent, residence or TAG but have contacts that give rise
to the litigation. Overall Question: Could D reasonably have anticipated being
brought to suit here?
 i. If minimum contacts are met, Asahi fairness factors (must weigh heavily
against if MC are met):
1. Consider actual burden on D for litigating in the forum
2. Consider burden on P if they were unable to go forward here (burden of
having to file somewhere else)
3. Consider interest of the forum state in hearing the case (Is it its law? Is
one of the parties a resident?)
4. What is the interest other forums would have litigating the case?
5. Is there a forum that would be better served to hear the case?
VENUE (Motion to dismiss for lack thereof or transfer venue pursuant to § 1406—below)
28 USC 1391(b)
Residency for § 1391
(1) District in which Persons: Residence=Domicile D resides (domiciled) IF all
defendants Corporations: Anywhere residents of the state where district is
located, OR subject to PJ (so, place of
(2) Any district in incorporation, headquarters, which substantial evens giving rise to
the suit or district subject to PJ if that occurred, OR
(3) If no district district were considered a under (1) or (3), any district in which
and D is subject separate state) to the court’s PJ
TRANSFER OF VENUE (§1406 if bad venue, §1404 if good)
 Just because venue goes against Forum Selection Clause, that does not mean venue is bad
(Lauro Lines)
 However, presence of a forum section clause weighs very heavily in a §1404 analysis
(Rico / Lauro Lines)
§1404(a)
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, district court may transfer
to another district where it could have been brought (SMJ, PJ, and V must be good) (same factors
as fairness factors for PJ)
-Thumb on the scale for P’s choice of venue. D must
argue the Relative Diff. of Meeting district she seeks is substantially
preferable to FF’s: the current district.
-Convenience of 1. PJ (toughest) Parties: Interests of P, Interests of D
-Convenience of 2. Forum Non Convenience Witnesses: Ease of access to proof, if
witnesses will 3. Transfer of Venue be able to be in new forum
-Interests of Justice:
Interest of Forum: Parties’ citizenship, applicable law, location of events
Interest of Other Forum: Parties’ citizenship, applicable law, location of events
Interests of Judicial System: Convenient package of claims and parties
§1406
An alternative to dismissal when either Venue or PJ is bad.
-No thumb on the scale for P’s choice of venue. If different districts are urged by each
party, do a §1404 analysis.

FORUM NON CONVENIAS: Motion to dismiss a case in federal court to allow the parties to go
forth in a substantially more convenient [Piper v. Rayno] non-US court if they desire. A state
court, under its forum non-convenience rules, may dismiss a case to allow it to go forward in
another state.