Federal Jurisdiction: Understanding Diversity and Alienage Jurisdiction in the US, Study notes of Civil procedure

Download Federal Jurisdiction: Understanding Diversity and Alienage Jurisdiction in the US and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Diversity and Alienage Jurisdiction - Reminder: themes to look for throughout the course: o balancing enforcing substantive rule of law against efficiency against autonomy o structural issues o statutory interpretation  E.g. What did Congress mean by 1332? - U.S. Const. Article III: Diversity is: • Between citizens of different states • Between a citizen of a state and foreign citizens or states - Why would we want to take these cases to Federal Court? o Diversity of citizenship:  We are afraid of state court judges being biased against out-of-staters • But are federal judges any less biased than state judges? o As for suits between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state (alienage jurisdiction)  Why do we need the possibility for parties to go to federal court? • Again, we are afraid that the judges may be biased against people from other countries. • It is unlikely that alienage jurisdiction exists to protect federal interests in foreign relations. If it were, then it would likely be required for foreign cases to go to federal court. As it is, it is merely a possibility. In addition a simple tort suit between an alien and citizen of a state concerning a slip and fall in the US can be an alienage case, but it hardly brings up foreign relations o 28 USC section 1332: Congress could choose to give federal courts more jurisdiction (as prescribed in the constitution), but they have chosen to limit it.  Note that there has been a change in this law since 2011 – the Federal Court Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 (Clarification Act) - Minimal v. Complete Diversity o Constitution gives standard of minimal diversity:  If anyone on the opposing parties is from a different state, Congress can send the action to federal court and it has done so in the past inb certain cases. This is called minimal diversity.  E.g.: P (NY) sues D1 (NY) and D2 (CA) under NY State Law. Congress can send this into federal court because of minimal diversity. o However, 1332 requires complete diversity:  1332 has been read to mean complete diversity; if anyone in the opposing parties is from the same state, no diversity. This is known as the “Strawbridge Rule” – you need complete diversity.  USSC interpreted 1332 in a very narrow way (to require complete diversity) because it would be too easy to get into federal court (very similar to the debate of “arising under” under 1331). Docsity.com - Examples: (asking what jurisdiction has Congress actually given under 1332?) For this discussion, the terms “domicile,” and “citizen” are used only for the purposes of determining Article III and 28 USC 1332. So forget the ways in which we use these terms for other purposes. Sec. 1332 – Diversity of Citizenship; amount in controversy; (a) controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 o P(NY) sues D1 (NY) and D2(CA) under NY state law for damages in connection with a brawl in NY.  This would not have federal jurisdiction under 1332. It could, however, if Congress chose to give the federal courts more power. • Strawbridge Rule: We need complete diversity. • We don’t want the federal courts flooded with cases with minimum diversity. o New Yorker sues Californian, who impleads his insurer, a New Yorker.  Suit by P against D can be brought to Federal Court because the plaintiff is suing someone from another state. Complete diversity when looking at the original cause of action. • A defendant cannot destroy diversity by impleading someone from the same state as the plaintiff  Every cause of action must have its own claim to federal jurisdiction. So the action between the defendant and his insurer must also have SMJ. However, • If, in this case, the insurer was Californian, it could still go to federal court because it is part of the same “controversy.” o This is called Supplemental jurisdiction (will discuss in detail later) o Californian sues a German.  This can be brought to Federal Court. It is between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state” under 1332(a)(2) o German sues a Frenchman.  This cannot be brought to Federal Court because none of the parties are a citizen of a U.S. State. • There is no power granted to do this in either 1332 or in Article III  This will go to the state court because there is no fear of prejudice. They are both from out of state. o New Yorker sues a Californian and a Frenchman  This can be brought to Federal Court under 1332(a)(3) – it is between “citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties” o A New Yorker and a German sue a Californian and a German Docsity.com