SMJ Flashcards

28 U.S.C. § 1332

Diversity of Citizenship

28 U.S.C. § 1331

Federal Question

28 U.S.C. § 1367

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

complete diversity required, all parties on one side must have different citizenship from all parties on the other side

Randazzo v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

corporations are citizens of both the state in which they are incorporated and the state in which they have their principal place of business at the same time

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

principal place of business defined as nerve center

Mas v. Perry

Domicile, therefore citizenship, of natural people established when: (1) person resides in a state, and (2) has intent to remain and make that residence true, fixed, permanent home

Belleville Catering v. Champaign Market Place

An LLC is a citizen of all the states where its members are citizens

Mottley

Well-Pleaded Complaint: the plaintiff must clearly state in their complaint the basis for FQ SMJ, it is not enough to anticipate that a federal question will arise later

American Well Works

Holmes Creation Test - a cause of action which is created by a federal law always arises under federal law

Smith v. Kansas City Title

State Law Claim Turns on Issue of Federal Law which happens when a substantial federal question / is actually disputed / AND federal jurisdiction would not upset the balance of labor between state and federal courts

Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution

judicial power extends to cases “arising under” federal law. To arise under A3S2, there need only be a “federal agreement” (Osborn)

Constitutional authorization for supp. jur.

Founders did it

UMW v. Gibbs

CNOF test

28 USC § 1441 and 1446 Removal

1. Original jurisdiction ground for removal

2. All defendants consent

3. District court encompassing state court

4. If solely FD, same state cannot remove

5. File notice with district court

1367(c) discretionary factors

(1) claim raises novel or complex state law issue

(2) state claims predominate over federal claims

(3) district court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction

(4) other compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances

Hanna II

FRCP v. State Law: FRCP wins assuming rule is on point and the rule is valid, authorized by the Constitution and Rules Enabling Act

Hanna I

FJP v. State Law: FJP wins unless sufficiently substantial risks litigants are forum shopping and/or FJP would prevent equitable administration of the law

Claim Preclusion/Res Judicata

1. Same claim (does not need to be actually litigated) [Majority same transaction gets 1 case, minority uses Carter for primary rights (property v. personal injury)]

2. Same parties

3. Valid, final judgment on the merits

Issue Preclusion/Collateral Estoppel

1. Same issue actually litigated and determined

2. Essential to valid and final judgment

3. Against parties to prior litigation (assuming no mutuality required anymore)