Agenda for 24th Class. Name plates out Fee Shifting Diversity Jurisdiction Introduction to Erie. Next Class. 28 USC 1652, 2072 Yeazell 241-55, 258-66 Questions to think about P. 248. Q1b
Agenda for 24th Class
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
P. 253 Q2. Does your answer depend on whether the plaintiff filed the complaint in federal court 1 minute before the statute of limitations expired?
Suppose West Dakota has a summary judgment practice different from the that which has governed in the federal courts since Celotex. In West Dakota, a defendant may not prevail by pointing out that plaintiff lacks evidence on an issue, but rather the defendant can only prevail on summary judgment by presenting undisputed evidence on every issue. If a diversity case is filed in federal district court in West Dakota, what standard should apply if the defendant files a motion for summary judgment? Is the answer and/or analysis different under Guaranty Trust than under Hanna?
Optional. Glannon Chapters 10 and 11
So far have been exploring “what court” question
Now moving on to “whose law.”
Federal or state law?
Erie question (Wednesday)
If state law, which state law?
Choice of law (Friday)
In diversity cases, what substantive law applies?
Before 1938, federal courts made own common law
But applied state statutes
Erie (1938). Federal courts follow state common law
In diversity cases, what procedural law applies?
Before 1938, state procedure
There was no FRCP
FRCP promulgated in 1938
Sometimes difficult to know whether state or federal law applies
Statutes of limitations? Jury right?
Supreme Court says it’s not purely a question of procedural (fed) or substantive (state), but not clear what dividing line is
Economic Model of Settlement
Factors encouraging settlement
High litigation costs
All lower plaintiff’s minimum acceptable offer and increases defendants maximum offer
Factor discouraging settlement
Raises plaintiff’s minimum and/or lowers defendants’ maximum offer
Means that even if plaintiff’s min is lower than defendant’s max, parties may not reach a deal, because each is trying to hard to get terms favorable to it.
Fee shifting problems
Diversity Jurisdiction I
Federal subject matter jurisdiction if
Citizen of State A sues citizen of state B
AND “amount in controversy exceeds … $75,000”
US citizen is citizen of US state in which “domiciled”
Domicile = residence with intent to remain indefinitely
“indefinitely” means no plans to leave, even if don’t plan to stay permanently
Individuals do not lose domicile in one state until establish domicile somewhere else
Student who grew up in MA and went to school in IL and CA may still be citizen of MA, even if hasn’t lived there for 10 years, as long as never intended to remain indefinitely in IL or CA
Corporations are citizens of two places
State of incorporation
State of principal place of business (corporate headquarters) (PPB)
Means LESS likely to get diversity jurisdiction
If individual citizen of CA sues corporation incorporated in Delaware with PPB in CA, then no diversity jurisdiction
Similarly, if individual citizen of Delaware sues….
Must, of course, still show personal jurisdiction
Diversity Jurisdiction II
If no diversity, can, of course, still get federal jurisdiction through federal question
Removal allowed if case could have been brought initially in federal court AND defendant is NOT from forum state
CA sues MA in MA court for $80,000, MA defendant cannot remove to federal court, even though CA plaintiff could have brought case in federal court
Complete diversity rule
No plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant
MA v CA & MA, no diversity jurisdiction
MA & CA v MA, no diversity jurisdiction
MA & CA v NV, diversity jurisdiction
AL & AK & CA & DE v AL & FL & KS & MO & NH & NM & OH
NO diversity jurisdiction
Not constitutionally required
Congress could change by statute
Similar to status of well-pleaded complaint rule
Diversity Jurisdiction III
Also diversity jurisdiction if
Suit between citizen of US and foreigner (citizen or subject of foreign state). 28 USC 1332(2)
CA v. France; MA v Germany, etc.
Called “alienage jurisdiction”
Alien admitted to US for permanent residence deemed a citizen of the state in which domiciled
CA v French permanent resident domiciled in MA. Diversity
CA v French permanent resident domiciled in CA. No diversity
German citizen v French citizen?
German (residing in Germany) v French permanent resident domiciled in CA?
Pp. 209 Q1, 3b, 4,
Suppose P is a citizen of Turkey, and D is a citizen of Egypt admitted to permanent residence in the US. P sues D in federal district court to collect a $100,000 debt. Is there federal jurisdiction?
Be sure to consider both 28 USC 1332(a) and the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2