Source: https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/fpmd/chapter2/section4
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:01:43+00:00

Document:
Two less commonly used jurisdictional statutes in legal services practice are those involving diversity jurisdiction and declaratory judgments. They are discussed briefly below.
1. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Section 101 of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and the Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-63, 125 Stat. 758 (2011), amended 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), which now more clearly eliminates federal jurisdiction in cases between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign state when the foreign citizen is a lawful permanent resident and domiciled in the same states as the same citizen. As before, diversity jurisdiction also exists when the parties include “citizens of different States and . . . citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties,” id. § 1332(a)(3), and “a foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a State or different States,” id. § 1332(a)(4).
2. See Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806); see also Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah Services, 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).
3. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). Removal jurisdiction is discussed in this Chapter in Section 2.7.
4. See Freeport-McMoran v. KN Energy, 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991) (per curiam).
5. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 541 U.S. 567, 574 (2004) (explaining Caterpillar v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996)).
6. See Garcia Perez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348, 350 (1st Cir. 2004).
7. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(e); see National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 603(1949).
8. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
9. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010), the Supreme Court resolved decades of confusion over a corporation's principal place of business when a firm's operations are directed from one state, but significant corporate activities occur elsewhere. Essentially adopting what has been known as the "nerve center" test, the Court held that the principal place of business is ordinarily where the company maintains its headquarters so long as the headquarters is the location where corporate officers "direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1186, 1192 (2010). Section 102 of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-63, 125 Stat. 758, amended 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) by clarifying that any corporation, foreign or domestic, is a citizen of its place of incorporation and principal place of business wherever those may be.
10. Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1015 (2016).
11. Id. at 1016 (under Maryland law, members of unincorporated business trusts include all shareholders); Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990) (members of limited partnership are both general and limited partners).
12. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005).
13. Most courts have not applied this exception in cases resting on federal question jurisdiction.
14. Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 693.
15. Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. (How.) 582, 584 (1858); see Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 693.
16. Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 703–04; see also Dunn v. Cometa, 238 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2001) (tort claims regarding management of former spouse not barred by domestic relations exception); Friedlander v. Friedlander, 149 F.3d 739, 740 (7th Cir. 1998) (tort claims not barred by exception). A similar exception excludes probate matters from federal jurisdiction. Federal courts may not probate a will or administer an estate but may entertain claims against administrators and executors as long as they do not interfere with probate proceedings. See generally 13E Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3609 (5th ed. 2009).
17. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006).
19. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2 (codified in parts of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1335, 1453, 1711-15).
20. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). This does not apply to class actions in which the “primary defendants are States, State officials, or other government entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief,” or in which there are less than 100 class members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5).
22. Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.
23. 28 U.S. C. § 2201(a). See Medimmune v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118, 126 (2007) (plaintiff did not have to terminate licensing agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment that underlying patent was invalid).
24. See Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671 (1950); cf. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1983) (state declaratory judgment acts do not expand removal jurisdiction).
25. See Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 15; Skelly Oil Co., 339 U.S. at 671–72.
26. See Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240(1937).

References: § 1332
 § 1332
 § 1332
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1332
 v. 
 § 1332
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3609
 v. 
 § 1332
 § 1332
 § 2201
 v. 
 v. 
 v.