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),

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!!

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

A. FORUM STATE DF - CAN'T REMOVE UNDER DIVERSITY RULE

s 1441 (b)(2) - removable under S 1331(a) only if no DF from forum state

B. TIME FRAME FOR REMOVAL

S.1446 (b) - 30 days from reciept of pleadings

if not = WAIVED

s.1446 (b)(2)(B) - 30 days from AMENDMENT, got basis for fed juris

C. TIME FRAME FOR DIVERSITY REMOVAL

S.1446(c)(1) - one year from initial filing, unless BAD FAITH

D. REMAND FOR IMPROPER REMOVAL

S. 1447 (c) - 30 days for PF to remand, not if JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT! (anytime can)

E. ALL DFs MUST CONSENT TO REMOVAL

S. 1446 (b)(2)(a) - must give consent! no = ground for remand!

(a) DF's residence =DOMICILE! (apply same Gordon v Steele test)

• if multiple DFs, there must be COMMON resident state. if none = move to (b) below
  

• REMEMBER: any judicial district of a state of the Df's resident subjects him to personal juris of that state, but it may not be the PROPER DISTRICT COURT. must look at where DF resides!

SONS & GRABLE

• IRS, quiet title, fed law question, improper notice
• fulfillfs Smith Exception

(2) GENERAL JURISDICTION

(a) no contact, but at home;
(b) all claims anywhere
(c) harder to prove

A state court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state company if the company has substantial connections with the state.

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

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.

UFFNER v LA REUNION - place where important part of the sequence of events occurred, giving rise to case

• point of dispute + Df's role in the matter

C. LONG ARM STATUTES
Rule 4(k)(1)(A)

• if state court had juris to hear the Df's case (where his domicile), then Fed court can hear it too
• depends on that state, usually up to full extent of Fed Consti allows