Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

JURISDICTION (SUBJECT MATTER ((3) REMOVAL 28 USC S.1441 (a) (b) removal…

- - - - D. COMPLETE DIVERSITY RULE (multiple DFs)
        MAS v PERRY
        
        no PF can be same as any DF
        
        amount in controversy not determined by amount claimed by PF in good faith
        
        federal j not lost just bcoz lower amount awarded
        
        H (France) and W(US, Lousiana),
      - B.CORPORATION DOMICILE
        "Nerve Center Test
        S. 1332(c) : (1) place of incorp
        (2) place of biz
        
        Hertz v Friend
        -A corporation’s principal place of business, for federal diversity jurisdiction purposes, refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the company’s activities.
        
        main HQ, day to day
        
        PARTNERSHIPS - not applied, "groups of individual litigants
      - C. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
        S.1332 limits scope of Art III
        "Good Faith" = St Paul Mercury Test
        
        ST PAUL MERCURY INDEMNITY v RED CAB
        
        "made in good faith, unless appears to legal certainty that claim is really less than jurisdictional amount"
        
        amount claimed conceivable/probable
        
        legal and factual basis
        
        *Diefenthal v C.A.B - "petty controversy,not justified"
        
        C (1) AGGREGATING AMOUNT -
        i. add claims from different PFs =NO
        ii. add claims vs different DFs = NO
        iii. add different claims by same PF vs same DF = YES!!
        iv. one PF satisfies+other PFs join vs same DF = YES!!
        v. trust fund, "common undivided interests" = YES!!
    - - GORDON v STEELE
        
        student aquires citizenshio depending on connection with residing state + intention not returning in foreeable future
  - - - C. SMITH EXCEPTION
        (DF bank x purchase bonds issued coz Govt acted
        unconstitutionally in issuing them, depends on determination of constitutional validity of an act of Congress)
        if NOT =FAIL, but if state law claim is -
        (i) SUBSTANTIAL;
        (ii) ACTUALLY DISPUTED;
        (iii) CAN BE HEARD W/O UPSETTING FED/STATE CT BALANCE?
        = CAN BE HEARD IN FED CT
        = ask HOW DOES IT AFFECT FUTURE OF FED LAW?
        
        GUNN v MINTON
        
        Fed question of patent law and malpractice suit
        
        NOT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION, MERELY HYPOTHETICAL as to validity of fed patent question
        
        doesn't affect "Govt's direct interest"in availability of federal forum to vindicate its own administrative action
        
        SONS & GRABLE
        
        IRS, quiet title, fed law question, improper notice
        
        fulfillfs Smith Exception
- - - - (1) minimum contacts within forum state;
        (2) claims arising from those contacts
        (3) doesnt offend principle of justice
        
        McGee v Intl Life Insurance ( insurance)
        
        suit based on contract which had substantial connection with that state (contacts sent to California,premiums paid there, insured resident)
        
        A state court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state company if the company has substantial connections with the state.
        
        Worldwide Volkswagon
        
        Robinsons sued WW ifor product liability in OKLAHOMA (accident & fire place), no personal juris as WW (NY) had no ties to forum state whatsoever,
        
        contacts v reasonableness
        
        established:
        (i) must have had contacts in forum state;
        (ii) purposeful/deliberate:
        (iii) arose out of those contacts;
        (iv) reasonable
        
        ++NO CONTACT, NO JURIS,EVEN IF REASONABLE
        
        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.
        
        Burger King v Rudzewicz
        
        negotiated & finalised deal with Florida, knowledge
        
        "PURPOSEFULLY DIRECTED ACTIVITIES + HARM ARISING OUT OF/RELATED TO ACTIVITIES"
        
        Contracts v Contacts
        
        Asahi
        
        foreign business’s should not be made aware that its products will reach a forum state within the United States in the stream of commerce, does not satisfy the minimum contacts needed for personal jurisdiction.
        
        Under the Due Process Clause, the fact that it is foreseeable that a product will enter a state though the stream of commerce does not create personal jurisdiction over the distributor and retailer.
        
        contacts not sufficient
      - "Arising out of"
        
        Corporations:
        (i) incorporatedl
        (ii) principal place of biz
        
        DAIMLER v BAUMAN
        (i) SPECIFIC - contacts give rise to claim
        (ii) GENERAL - principal place of biz
        
        A court may assert general jurisdiction over a corporation when the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation essentially at home in the state.