CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 REVISION MATERIAL
(QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED FOR CASE
RATIONALES) 2024/2025 UPDATE
1. A person's domicile is usually defined as the state where he
has taken up residence with the intent to reside indefinitely.
Under this definition, residence is not equivalent to domicile;
having a residence in the state is necessary but not sufficient to
establish a domicile for diversity purposes.: ex: Hawkins vs.
Masters Farms
* If Hawes owns houses in both Missouri and Wyoming and spends a
good deal of time in both states, he will still have only one domicile.
Which state it is depends on his subjective intent-sometimes almost
impossible to ascertain-to make one particular state his home.
2. Challenge and Waiver- 12 (b), (h), and (g)
If you make a pre-answer motion (or make an appearance or
litigate other issues) without first raising objection to personal
jurisdiction, then the defense is waived.
Objection to personal jurisdiction must be raised at the earlier
opportunity.:
3. Under 1332 (c) (1) corporations are now citizens for diversity
purposes of both the state where their principal place of
business is located and the state in which they are incorporated.
Consequently, if an opposing party is a citizen of either of those
states, diversity does not exist.:
4. Other Courts concluded that a corporation’s principal place
of business under 1332 (c)(l) is the state where its headquarters
is located, the "nerve center" from which the corporate
operations are directed by officers and directors.: Hertz Corp v.
Friend: We conclude that "principal place of business" is best
read as referring to the place where a corporation's officers
direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.
,5. Diversity Jurisdiction
- is there diversity between the parties in the following cases?
a. Marlowe, from California, sues Archer, from California, in a federal
district court in Illinois.: Marlowe and Archer are both from California.
You can't get any less diverse than this, under any definition of diversity.
The fact that Marlowe has sued in an Illinois federal court is irrelevant.
No matter which district he chooses, the parties are from the same
state. Don't be thrown off the track by the fact that the suit is brought in
a different state. For diversity purposes, the crucial question is where the
opposing parties live, not where they sue.
6. Diversity Jurisdiction
Carella, from New York, sues Marlowe (California) and Archer
(California).: This is a proper diversity case even though both
defendants are from California. All
defendants must be from different states than all plaintiffs; parties
on the same side of the "V" may be co-citizens. While this might not
satisfy one's intuitive notion of "complete diversity," it is diverse
enough to satisfy Chief Justice Marshall and 1332 (a).
7. Diversity Jurisdiction
Carella (New York), McGee (Florida), and Spenser (Massachusetts) sue
Marlowe (California), Archer (California), and Meyer (New York).: There
is no diversity Jurisdiction here. While there are diverse citizens on both
sides of the "V" there are also New Yorkers on both sides. This is an
ironic result, why should a New York state court jury be any less
prejudiced against Marlowe and Archer, simply because Meyer has been
sued as well? Indeed, might not the jury shift the blame from the in-
state defendant to the out-of-state defendants?
8. Diversity Jurisdiction
Marlowe (California) sues Archer (California) in federal court in California
for damages under a federal firearms control statute. May the court hear
the case? It is only necessary to have one basis of federal jurisdiction to
, CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 REVISION MATERIAL
(QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED FOR CASE
RATIONALES) 2024/2025 UPDATE
sue in federal court. Here, Marlowe's suit is brought under a federal
statute. It is a case "arising under federal law," a separate basis for
federal subject matter jurisdiction authorized by article Ill and 28 U.S.C
1331.
9. Diversity Jurisdiction
Marlowe (California) sues Carella (New York) for breach of contract in
state court. Can he do this? Marlowe's is a proper diversity case, so he
could have filed it in federal court. But state courts have jurisdiction over
contracts cases in this case in state court if he wishes. However, Carella
may have a right to "remove" it to federal court if Marlowe does file in
state court.)
10. Marlowe (California) sues McGee (Florida) and Archer (California),
Marlowe's claim against McGee is for defamation, a state law claim. His
claim against Archer arises from the same incident but is based on
federal law. Will the federal court have jurisdiction? This suits is proper
even though Archer and Marlowe are both from California. Marlowe has
a federal claim against Archer, a separate basis for suing him in federal
court. Thus, he is not relying on diversity between himself and Archer as
a basis for jurisdiction. In determining diversity, you can disregard parties
who are properly before the federal court on another basis and focus on
the part of the case for which diversity is argued as the basis for
jurisdiction. Because Marlowe is diverse from McGee, his claim against
him is proper, so there is a basis for jurisdiction over all the claims in the
case.
Put another way, it is clear on these facts that Marlowe could sue
McGee and Archer in separate actions in federal court, one based on
federal question jurisdiction and the other on diversity. it would hardly
make sense to allow him to do that, but not to allow him to sue them in
a combined action.
1 1. Marlowe (California) sues McGee (Florida) in federal court for libel.
A month later he amends his complaint to add a libel claim against
, Archer, a California citizen who co-authored the offending article. Will
the federal court have jurisdiction over the action? Marlowe sues a
diverse defendant, gets into federal court, and then adds the non-
diverse defendant by amending his complaint. The federal court will
probably either refuse to allow the amendment or dismiss the action for
lack of diversity jurisdiction, since Marlowe's amendment has
"destroyed diversity" by adding a party from his home state. Even
though the court had jurisdiction over the action as originally filed, it
must dismiss once the non-diverse party is added. Otherwise, the
plaintiff would be able to gain access to federal court by suing diverse
parties in the initial action and adding home-state defendants.
12. Meyer, a New Yorker, decides to move to Arizona. He buys an
Audi from Isola Volkswagen, a New York dealership incorporated
in New York, and sets off with his family for Arizona. While
driving through Oklahoma, he is involved in an accident and
hospitalized.
a. Two months later, while still in the hospital, Meyer files a negligence
suit against Isola in an Oklahoma federal court. Does the court have
diversity jurisdiction? A slightly modified version of the facts in World-
Wide Volkswagen vs. Woodson. The case could not be properly brought
as a diversity case, since Meyer is still a New Yorker. Even though he
intends to settle in Arizona and has left New York, perhaps never to
return, he has not yet established a domicile in Arizona. To do so, he
must physically arrive in the state with the intent to remain there
indefinitely. Nor may Meyer argue that he is domiciled the Oklahoma
based on his two-month stay there. He has arrived there and established
a residence of sorts, but as far as we know, he has not changed his intent
to go to live in Arizona. Residence in Oklahoma without the necessary
intent is just as ineffective to create a new domicile as intent to live in
Arizona without residence there. Until the two coincide in a new state,
Meyer remains a New York domiciliary.
(QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED FOR CASE
RATIONALES) 2024/2025 UPDATE
1. A person's domicile is usually defined as the state where he
has taken up residence with the intent to reside indefinitely.
Under this definition, residence is not equivalent to domicile;
having a residence in the state is necessary but not sufficient to
establish a domicile for diversity purposes.: ex: Hawkins vs.
Masters Farms
* If Hawes owns houses in both Missouri and Wyoming and spends a
good deal of time in both states, he will still have only one domicile.
Which state it is depends on his subjective intent-sometimes almost
impossible to ascertain-to make one particular state his home.
2. Challenge and Waiver- 12 (b), (h), and (g)
If you make a pre-answer motion (or make an appearance or
litigate other issues) without first raising objection to personal
jurisdiction, then the defense is waived.
Objection to personal jurisdiction must be raised at the earlier
opportunity.:
3. Under 1332 (c) (1) corporations are now citizens for diversity
purposes of both the state where their principal place of
business is located and the state in which they are incorporated.
Consequently, if an opposing party is a citizen of either of those
states, diversity does not exist.:
4. Other Courts concluded that a corporation’s principal place
of business under 1332 (c)(l) is the state where its headquarters
is located, the "nerve center" from which the corporate
operations are directed by officers and directors.: Hertz Corp v.
Friend: We conclude that "principal place of business" is best
read as referring to the place where a corporation's officers
direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.
,5. Diversity Jurisdiction
- is there diversity between the parties in the following cases?
a. Marlowe, from California, sues Archer, from California, in a federal
district court in Illinois.: Marlowe and Archer are both from California.
You can't get any less diverse than this, under any definition of diversity.
The fact that Marlowe has sued in an Illinois federal court is irrelevant.
No matter which district he chooses, the parties are from the same
state. Don't be thrown off the track by the fact that the suit is brought in
a different state. For diversity purposes, the crucial question is where the
opposing parties live, not where they sue.
6. Diversity Jurisdiction
Carella, from New York, sues Marlowe (California) and Archer
(California).: This is a proper diversity case even though both
defendants are from California. All
defendants must be from different states than all plaintiffs; parties
on the same side of the "V" may be co-citizens. While this might not
satisfy one's intuitive notion of "complete diversity," it is diverse
enough to satisfy Chief Justice Marshall and 1332 (a).
7. Diversity Jurisdiction
Carella (New York), McGee (Florida), and Spenser (Massachusetts) sue
Marlowe (California), Archer (California), and Meyer (New York).: There
is no diversity Jurisdiction here. While there are diverse citizens on both
sides of the "V" there are also New Yorkers on both sides. This is an
ironic result, why should a New York state court jury be any less
prejudiced against Marlowe and Archer, simply because Meyer has been
sued as well? Indeed, might not the jury shift the blame from the in-
state defendant to the out-of-state defendants?
8. Diversity Jurisdiction
Marlowe (California) sues Archer (California) in federal court in California
for damages under a federal firearms control statute. May the court hear
the case? It is only necessary to have one basis of federal jurisdiction to
, CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 REVISION MATERIAL
(QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED FOR CASE
RATIONALES) 2024/2025 UPDATE
sue in federal court. Here, Marlowe's suit is brought under a federal
statute. It is a case "arising under federal law," a separate basis for
federal subject matter jurisdiction authorized by article Ill and 28 U.S.C
1331.
9. Diversity Jurisdiction
Marlowe (California) sues Carella (New York) for breach of contract in
state court. Can he do this? Marlowe's is a proper diversity case, so he
could have filed it in federal court. But state courts have jurisdiction over
contracts cases in this case in state court if he wishes. However, Carella
may have a right to "remove" it to federal court if Marlowe does file in
state court.)
10. Marlowe (California) sues McGee (Florida) and Archer (California),
Marlowe's claim against McGee is for defamation, a state law claim. His
claim against Archer arises from the same incident but is based on
federal law. Will the federal court have jurisdiction? This suits is proper
even though Archer and Marlowe are both from California. Marlowe has
a federal claim against Archer, a separate basis for suing him in federal
court. Thus, he is not relying on diversity between himself and Archer as
a basis for jurisdiction. In determining diversity, you can disregard parties
who are properly before the federal court on another basis and focus on
the part of the case for which diversity is argued as the basis for
jurisdiction. Because Marlowe is diverse from McGee, his claim against
him is proper, so there is a basis for jurisdiction over all the claims in the
case.
Put another way, it is clear on these facts that Marlowe could sue
McGee and Archer in separate actions in federal court, one based on
federal question jurisdiction and the other on diversity. it would hardly
make sense to allow him to do that, but not to allow him to sue them in
a combined action.
1 1. Marlowe (California) sues McGee (Florida) in federal court for libel.
A month later he amends his complaint to add a libel claim against
, Archer, a California citizen who co-authored the offending article. Will
the federal court have jurisdiction over the action? Marlowe sues a
diverse defendant, gets into federal court, and then adds the non-
diverse defendant by amending his complaint. The federal court will
probably either refuse to allow the amendment or dismiss the action for
lack of diversity jurisdiction, since Marlowe's amendment has
"destroyed diversity" by adding a party from his home state. Even
though the court had jurisdiction over the action as originally filed, it
must dismiss once the non-diverse party is added. Otherwise, the
plaintiff would be able to gain access to federal court by suing diverse
parties in the initial action and adding home-state defendants.
12. Meyer, a New Yorker, decides to move to Arizona. He buys an
Audi from Isola Volkswagen, a New York dealership incorporated
in New York, and sets off with his family for Arizona. While
driving through Oklahoma, he is involved in an accident and
hospitalized.
a. Two months later, while still in the hospital, Meyer files a negligence
suit against Isola in an Oklahoma federal court. Does the court have
diversity jurisdiction? A slightly modified version of the facts in World-
Wide Volkswagen vs. Woodson. The case could not be properly brought
as a diversity case, since Meyer is still a New Yorker. Even though he
intends to settle in Arizona and has left New York, perhaps never to
return, he has not yet established a domicile in Arizona. To do so, he
must physically arrive in the state with the intent to remain there
indefinitely. Nor may Meyer argue that he is domiciled the Oklahoma
based on his two-month stay there. He has arrived there and established
a residence of sorts, but as far as we know, he has not changed his intent
to go to live in Arizona. Residence in Oklahoma without the necessary
intent is just as ineffective to create a new domicile as intent to live in
Arizona without residence there. Until the two coincide in a new state,
Meyer remains a New York domiciliary.
