Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Coggle Diagram
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Diversity Jurisdiction
Citizens of the disputes are domiciled in different state
No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant
Does the dispute involve foreign parties?
If so, foreign parties can not be on both sides of a dispute unless accompanied by a U.S.citizen
If there is more than one foreign party on one side, diversity of citizenship between the foreign parties is not necessary
If there is a foreign plaintiff then there must be an American Citizen on both sides
Permanent resident aliens are not considered U.S. citizens. They are citizens of the country in which they are from.
Mas v. Perry
held that Domiciliary is established when:
A party maintains residence within a state with the intention
to remain there for an indefinite period of time
A party is domiciled where there true fixed permeant home is
Is one of the parties a corporation? If so, a corporations’ domicile can be determined by:
The state that is incorporated in
Where it has its principles place of business.(Nerve Center Test)
The amount of Controversy exceeds $75,000
Cannot be done with assistance of the defendant's counterclaim
Aggregation of multiple claims can be done when there is one plaintiff vs. one defendant
Multiple plaintiffs may not add their claims together for purpose of satisfying the minimum amount in controversy
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Does the plaintiff’s initial complaint implicate an issue of federal law? (Constitutions, federal laws, or treaties)
Yes
Federal question jurisdiction is satisfied
No
Federal question jurisdiction is not satisfied
Is the federal issue implicated in a potential defense that the defendant could raise? If so:
Federal question jurisdiction can not be granted if the federal issue is not located in the plaintiff’s initial complaint
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Is plaintiff asserting two claims?
Yes
Does one claim qualify while the other doesn’t?
Qualified by federal question
As long as the second claim arises out of the common nucleus of operative fact, supplemental jurisdiction would be proper and 1367(b) is not needed
Qualified by diversity jurisdiction
Does the non-qualifying claim arise out of the common nucleus of operative fact.
Yes
Is plaintiff attempting to file a claim against a third party who was joined under Rule 14,19,20,24?
If no, supplemental jursidiction is granted
Yes, then 1367(b)(2) is applicable and supplemental jurisdiction is not granted
Is a third party seeking to join as a plaintiff under FRCP 19 & 24?
No, then supplemental jursidiction is granted.
Yes, then 1367(b)(2) is applicable and no supplemental jurisdiction is granted.
No, then supplemental jurisdiction is not granted over non-qualifying claim.