Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/74861971/Civ-Pro-Flow-Charts
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 02:52:00
Document Index: 759900828

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1332', '§1441', '§1446', '§1446', '§1332', '§1331', '§1332', '§1441']

Civ. Pro (Flow Charts) | Diversity Jurisdiction | Minimum Contacts
Uploaded by William Little
Does the forum state’s long arm statue provide for jurisdiction over D? Gray & VW
The forum state cannot exercise p.j. over D
Is any of the following true? -D is domiciled in forum state (or is corp incorporated state) -D has consented -D owns property & is subject -D regularly transacts business in state
At least some of D’s contacts with the forum state voluntarily?
D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and no p.j. – need purposeful availment - Hanson
Does the cause of action arise out of or relate to D’s contact with forum state?
Are D’s contacts with the forum state “systematic and continuous”? Helic
Contacts not minimum and no p.j.
D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and the forum therefore can’t exercise p.j. over him
Are D’s contacts with the state sufficiently great that they should be deemed “minimum contacts”? - reasonably anticipate be haled into court (VW)
McGee – p.j. – obligation, premiums from CA residents, witness Hanson – no p.j. b/c lack office in FL, business, creation of trust in PA Gray – p.j. - product “w/ contemplation of use in state” – tort in state VW – no p.j. - car bought in NY as NY residents & P brought to state Kulko – no p.j. - sent kids to live w/ mom in state Keeton – p.j. – suit related to magazine distribution, interest in libel Calder – p.j. – brunt of harm directed towards state w/ distribution
Jurisdiction reasonable, comport with traditional notions of fair play? (a) Burden of D (inconvenient litigation) (b) Forum state interest (c) Interstate judicial efficiency (d) Substantive social policies (e) P’s interest
Even though D has minimum contacts with due process prevents the exercise of p.j. Asahi – not reasonable even for Brennan
The court may constitutionally exercise p.j. over D
Continue analysis Yes No Yes There IS diversity jurisdiction. Does the amount in controversy exceed $75.e.000 as made in good faith by P? Mas §1332(a) There is NO No diversity jurisdiction No There is NO diversity jurisdiction Other way to get Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal Question Jurisdiction 1. filed in state §1441(a) P could file in fed court .§1446(b) • Within 30 days from time case become removable . Mas For diversity purposes.§1446(b) – . Principal Place of For diversity purposes. but D remove state to fed • D can’t remove if case filed in D’s state of residence Removal statute narrower than diversity statute 1. an unincorporated entity is deemed to be a citizen of every state where members are citizens.Determining Diversity Cannot be waived!! Does at least one side consist solely of foreign countries or citizens of foreign countries? No Alienage jurisdiction – Is the suit between a citizen of a state on one side. State of Incorporation 2. No amount in controversy requirement a. is deemed to be a citizen of: 1. only foreigners No Yes The is NO diversity jurisdiction §1332 – permanent aliens citizens of domicile Is an unincorporated Yes entity a party? No Is diversity complete? No P is a citizen of the same state as any D. Strawbridge. §1331 – “actions arising under the Constitution. and a foreign country or citizens or subjects thereof on the other? Mas Case: §1332(a)(2) Yes Is a corporation a party? Yes Noo i. a corp.but • Exception: §1441(b) Diversity cases in D’s home state can’t remove • All Ds agree . [federal] laws” 2. Mottley: must be “Well pleaded complaint” • must be a federal claim by P not a defense by D Removal • P’s choice where to file.
Documents Similar To Civ. Pro (Flow Charts)