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

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

Partial preview of the text

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).

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,

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

 Baker v. Keck (p237) – two elements needed to satisfy the domicile requirement: (1) presence and (2) intent to make it your home. You need both at the same time.

When you’re in the military and traveling, you keep your original domicile (e.g. Virginian who joins the military and goes on a military tour is still domiciled in Virginia)  This is true for prisoners as well. o A German sues a Frenchman and a New Yorker  This will not get into Federal Court under 1332(a)(2). We need complete alienage for it to be a suit between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state” i.e. you cannot have “citizens or subjects of a foreign state” on both sides of the “v.”
Constitution only requires minimal alienage, but 1332 requires complete alienage.
Does 1332 really work? Does it really achieve our goals with respect to eliminating bias? o There are times when things do actually qualify to go to federal court, even though they can’t really be justified according to our acclaimed purposes.  A from California sues B from Nevada in Federal Court in Oregon.
Oregon state court judge would not favor P or D  A from California sues B from Nevada in Federal Court in California.
Why should the Californian have a right to go to federal court, when he would only benefit from any bias in Cal. state court o Or times when maybe there really is a reason to protect against prejudice, but they don’t actually have the ability to go to federal court.  A from California sues B from California and C from Nevada in Federal Court in Nevada.
Why is there forum shopping between federal and state courts? o Discussed in earlier lecture o But is there a reason to believe that federal courts are less biased against out-of- staters…?  Federal appointments are for life and state judges are often elected by the people of that state – suggesting more state court bias  Procedures might be different in a way that favors in-state parties
Baker v. Keck o We suspect that Baker may have moved to Oklahoma for the sole purpose of securing a trial in federal court based on diversity. So how are we going to determine Baker’s domicile for the purposes of determining diversity?  What a cliff-hanger!

To be continued….

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

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Federal Jurisdiction: Understanding Diversity and Alienage Jurisdiction in the US and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!