Individual's citizen is determined by domicile (where resides and intends to remain indefinitely) -- look only at time of filing, not later. If you definitely plan to move back somewhere else, that's your domicile. if you move somewhere and might move back but have no plans, the new state is your domicile.

Corp: a citizen of 1) its state of incorporation and 2) a citizen of a state where its PPB is located (could be citizen of 2 places)

PTP/assoc: deemed a citizen of every state in which one of its members is a citizen

P's view governs amt in controversy, and only the alleged amt governs. A SINGLE claimant may aggregate claims agains a single D (can be totally unrelated, no TOO req), but not multiple Ds. MULTIPLE claimants cannot aggregate claims to meet the $75k min unless their claims are common and undivided (from the same occurrence and same property)

If diversity jx is basis for removal, removal is not allowed if any D is a citizen of the state where the action is pending. (doesn't apply to Fed Q)

If fed jx dos not exist, P can seek a remand back to the state ct w/in 30 days of the filing of the notice of removal

quasi in rem jx over property that is attached to satisfy judgment in the action

Failure to state a claim upon which relief should be granted (ct assumes facts are 100% true, must be plausible, not probable [needs some facts] (waived if not before end of trial)

Failure to join a necessary party (waived if not before end of trial)

Also includes lack of SMJ, but that defense is never waived. It can be raised at any time, including on appeal, and can be raised by the ct itself.

Interpleader (Rule 22): holder of a common fund may file a lawsuit as a P and join as Ds all rival claimants (opposite sides of v.) to its common fund (having the other 2 guys sue each other when the interpleading party fears it will face multiple/inconsistent liabilities: i.e. ex-wife and wife fighting over insurance payout when husband dies. insurance co-files interpleader b/c if it pays one of them the other will sue the co)

Impleader (Rule 14): D may bring in a 3rd party if that party may be liable to D for all or part of D's liability to P. D has right to implead w/in 14 days of serving an answer, otherwise needs permission from ct. After impleaded, 3rd person made party may bring own claims against others and implead others. Original P can also file claim against impleaded D IF it relates to one of P's original claims. Supplemental jx can cover the impleader claim if it wouldn't have SMJ on its own.

As of right: must be permitted to intervene upon timely application when 1) claims an interest relating to subject matter of the action and 2) w/o intervention, risk they might not be able to protect that interest (preclusion). Ex: insurance company intervening to make sure P gets enough money in lawsuit from D to cover otherwise insurance payments

Permissive: upon timely application and at ct's discretion, may intervene w/ a claim or defense that shares w/ the main action a common Q of law or fact. Must have SMJ, PJ (which can happen by P's consent), and venue.

Mandatory/compulsory: If it arises from the same TOO. Failure to bring a mandatory cc results in waiver of that claim (forever -- preclusion). Ct has SMJ under supplemental jx in the absence of an independent basis for fed jx

Permissive: when D seeks to join claims that do not arise from the same TOO. Failure to file a permissive cc does not result in waiver. No supplemental jx exists, b/c it did not arise out of the same TOO -- independent grounds for fed jx must exist.

Numbers--the class must be so numerous that joinder of them all would be impracticable (at least 40)

Commonality--there must be common issues of of fact or law including common claims and common injuries

Typicality--the claims of the named P are typical of the class, ensuring the rep will have an incentive to litigate in ways to protect the class

1.A. Rule 1: Fed cts have jx over claims arising under the const'l. laws, and treaties of the US. Apply to facts, and conclude if FQ jx exists or not.

1.B.i. Rule A: Complete diversity is req'd, meaning no P and D can be citizens of the same state. (May need more rules if a corp is one of the parties). Apply to facts and conclude if complete diversity exists or not.

1.b.ii Rule B: The amt in controversy must be >$75k. A claimant may aggregate claims against a single D, but not against multiple Ds. Multiple claimants cannot aggregate claims to meet the $75k minimum. Apply to facts and conclude if amt in controversy is met or not.

demands fed judge's expertise and ought to be resolved uniformly +

not so commonly present in state law actions to trample their jx

Class Actions: All Ds and named (representative) Ps must have complete diversity. Exception: Class actions where >100 persons and >$5M --> diversity need only be "minimal" -- a single P diverse from a single D

Step 1: Determine relatedness. Does claim 2 (piggyback claim) arise from the same TOO as one w/ FQ or Div (anchor claim)? If not, no supplemental. If so, move to step 2

Step 2: Sneaky Ps. Is anchor claim FQ? If yes, move to step 3. If not, anchor must be Div. --> need to determine how they were brought into suit. If brought in by P whose present in the suit is pursuant to Rules 14 (impleader -- 3rd party D), 19, 20, 24, P may be trying to sneak in a claim she could otherwise have not made (doesn't meet 2 Div reqs). These are not allowed under Supplemental -- need FQ or Div or to drop the added claim. Stacked Ds: need FQ or Div. Stacked Ps against one D: ok to use supplemental. If no sneaky Ps, move to step 3.

Step 3: Is there a good reason for the court to decline anyway? If yes, the ct MAY decline. Possible reasons: 1) involves novel or complex issue of state law, 2) state claim "substantially dominates" over FQ or Div, 3) anchor claim was dismissed, 4) other compelling reasons

Exception (Home-state D rule): D can't remove if: 1) fed jx would be grounded ONLY in Div jx and 2) D is a citizen of state where P filed suit

If multiple Ds, removal allowed only if ALL Ds agree to remove

Multiple Ds: later service on other Ds gives later D right to choose removal (D1 can join later D's removal but can't himself remove if too late for D1)

If removal based on diversity and P changes her claims or parties after initially filing (like settling w/ one D), D must remove w/in 1 year of P filing suit unless P attempted to thwart removal

Normally, when D served w/ complaint. [Can be later -- if P amends, then 30 days from that point -- Final says this isn't true. ONLY from original complaint]

Step 1: Look at state (long-arm) law. Could a state ct in that state assert PJ over that party? Yes -- fed ct has PJ (subject to C'l considerations). NO -- if state court wouldn't have PJ, fed ct doesn't either

Service: if a D is served while in forum state, PJ exists even if his presence is temporary and unrelated to the lawsuit. But if their presence is solely due to force or fraud by P, or participation in another legal/judicial proceeding, service may not establish jx

Residency: if party is domiciled (resides w/ intent to remain indefinitely) in state where suit filed, PJ is C'l. Corp is resident of state(s) where incorporated and where PPB is. All other entities: just where HQ or PPB is.

Appearance: Party appears in ct w/o objecting to PJ (must object to PJ in initial filing or first appearance before ct)

Appt: Some states require biz to appoint agents located in state to receive process --> consent. (but cts are split on this)

PJ won't offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (burden on D, forum state's interest, P's interest in obtaining relief, interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies, and shared interests of states in furthering fundamental social policies)

Substantial business: VERY high bar. Business must be so significant (relocating office) that tho not incorporated or HQ'd in state, is essentially At home there

Forum non conveniens: if most convenient forum not in the US, ct cannot transfer but can dismiss w/o prejudice so P can refile in proper country no tin US. Same factors considered as in transfer of venue.

If all Ds reside in same state --> district where any single D resides (humans where they live, bizes reside in every district in which they are subject to PJ for that suit, like minimum contacts) OR location of the harm (see below)

Ds reside in multiple states --> location of harm (the district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or where a substantial part of the property that's the subject of the action is located -- can be more than one place)

Agreement: If all parties join request to transfer, ct does not need to consider PJ or venue (if agree, consenting) or even convenience

Interest of justice: if filed in improper venue, ct can dismiss or in the interest of justice (i.e. P would fail SOL if re-files), transfer where could have been filed originally

Convenience (common): could have been filed there in first place and transfer is necessary for convenience of parties and/or witnesses

Party can amend with permission of opposing parties or if not, the ct (considers reason for delay and prejudice to opposing party, and is usually granted) -- can even happen at trial

P may amend its complaint once as a matter of right w/in 21 days of service upon the D or if an answer or motion to dismiss has already been filed, w/in 21 days after that service. (And D can amend answer w/in 21 days of serving it)

Adding new claims: amendment considered filed on date of original claim IF new claim arises from the same TOO as existing claim (relation back rule)

Adding new parties: will relate back to original filing date if same TOO AND party to be added: 1) knew of the suit soon enough to not be prejudiced and not later than time permitted for service (90 days) and 2) should have expected to be named as a D and 3) was originally left out b/c of mistake in identity (not P's strategy)

Anyone over 18 and not a party (even for pro se Ps) can serve

Must serve w/in 90 days of filing complaint or ct will dismiss w/o prejudice unless P can show good cause why it was not completed in 90 days

Must serve both the complaint + summons (if not, service isn't proper). Must serve each NEW party too (like through impleader)

Option One: Manner prescribed by State court in state where 1) fed suit has been filed or 2) where the D will be served (resides) (but look for C'l issues still)

If D = natural person, 4 options: 1) Personal service to D himself (through 3rd person), 2) leave at D's usual Abode w/ a person of suitable age and discretion who actually resides there, 3) serve D's registered Agent, or 4) mail w/ letter requesting D Waive in-person service (If D declines to waive, he becomes responsible for cost of personal service)

If D = corp, PTP, ass'n, 3 options: serve process on: 1) an officer, 2) a managing agent or general agent or 3) any other agent authorized by appt or by law to receive service (if law req's by mail, must serve both by hand and mail)

Notice through service: basically have notice (key is whether service was reas calculated to inform D of action against him)

Notice w/o service: may be a C'l issue (key is whether P took steps reas calculated to inform D of the action against him)

Motion to dismiss: seeks dismissal, can be filed by any defending party

Motion to strike: ct can (on own or motion) order material stricken if complaint/answer contains redundant, immaterial or scandalous stuff

Initial response (answer or pre-answer motion): If D was actually served w/ process --> 21 days to respond. If D waived in-person service --> 60 days to respond

If D responds w/ a ^ motion (definite statement, strike, dismiss) and it is denied, D must file answer w/in 14 days of denial regardless of original time period (21 or 60 days)

Once a related c-c is filed, this is the anchor claim and unrelated c-c's can now be filed using Rule 18. Co-D can also cc the cross using Rules 13(a)-(b) for cc's. Compulsory/permissive rules DO apply but there need not be relation of claims.

If supplemental jx later fails (the fed claim drops out), the fed ct may, in its discretion, either hear the state claim or dismiss the action (but it will not remand to state ct -- remand is only from state to fed)

Joined parties claim relief (if Ps) or face liability (if Ds) that arises out of the same TOO AND

Step 2: If missing party is necessary, can she be joined?: Missing party can't be joined in fed ct if ct lacks PJ over missing party, or adding would destroy SMJ by destroying diversity. Yes? --> Ct should just join them, adjudicate case (skip ste 3). No? --> Proceed to Step 3

Step 3: If cannot be joined, are they indispensable? Ct will consider: extent of prejudice to missing party; can prejudice be lessened by shaping relief in a certain way (damages instead of specific performance); and if case is dismissed, whether P can find relief in another forum. Yes? --> Must dismiss the suit. No? --> Ct can adjudicate case in party's absence

Step 1: Is the absent party necessary?: Necessary party = has an interest that might be impaired if left out (suing for painting back, need the guy who has it); complete relief cannot be issued in the party's absence; or if current parties would be subject to inconsistent/duplicative liability. If party is not necessary, no mandatory joinder

Adequacy--the named P and class counsel lawyers must fairly and adequately represent he class

where party opposing has acted in ways generally applicable to the class (not likely to work if seeking $$ -- usually for injunctions)

court finds that common questions of law or fact predominate over individualized Qs and a class action is superior to other methods for fair/efficient result (normal large news/email class actions)

Separate actions would create risk of inconsistent judgments or judgments would impair the nonparties from protecting interests

SMJ: When alleging state law violation, class can appear in fed ct only if Ds and all representative Ps (not all class members) are completely diverse. Exception: if >100 members seek damages >$5M, diversity is satisfied if any single class member is diverse from any D

conditions precedent, but only when denying the condition has occurred

capacity or authority to sue, but only when req'd to show the ct has jx

time and place, when testing the sufficiency of a pleading, and

special damages (the kind not expected to flow from the injury)

Motion for more definite statement: ct will order pleading to be clarified if so vague that responding party cannot reas prepare a response

Every complaint must warrant: 1) good faith, 2) good facts, 3) good law. FRCP 11(b)(2): the court may issue an order to show cause (before voluntary dismissal or settlement) why a P (represented or not) should not be sanctioned ($ or non-$, goal is to DETER repetition) if it pleads a claim that is not warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument to change existing law. Ct may then sanction if the P does not amend or withdraw its pleading w/in 21 days (D first serves P with the complaint, and gives them that safe harbor). Sanctions are joint for P's law firm, not just for P

Last resort: district where any D is subject to PJ (this might come up if Ds live in different states and the event happened in Canada but everyone is a US citizen -- need to just choose one of the D's districts). OR a district where the parties consent (PJ) to venue.

Factors: 1) quantity of contacts, 2) nature and quality of contacts, 3) connection/relation b/w contacts and COA, 4) state's interest in providing a forum, and 5) the relative convenience of the parties

Necessarily raised, substantial, and capable of resolution in fed ct w/o disrupting the fed-state balance approved by Congress

Amendments that do not add new claims or parties (just damages or correcting errors) do not implicate SOL concerns