CivProNotESForOCT6 - a 1369 Multiparty Disasters and Minimal Diversity Passa v Derderian 308 F.Supp 2d 43(DRI 2004 note Hertz Corp v Friend 2010 WL

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
a. 1369: Multiparty Disasters and Minimal Diversity: Passa v. Derderian, 308 F.Supp 2d 43 (DRI 2004); note Hertz Corp v. Friend 2010 WL 605601 resolving issues regarding a corporation’s principal place of business 2. Jurisdiction over “federal questions:” 28 U.S.C. 1331 The well-pleaded complaint rule: CB 864-873 CivProNotESForOCT6 Fed Jur is limited and set by Art III §2 Not self executing, needs congressional authorize for powers Diversity est to give out of state ∆ a neutral site Complete div: starwbridge No Π from state of any ∆ 75 k + More carve outs of the Art III §2 pie Fed interpleader 1335 1332(d) CAFA 1369 Multiparty All allow bigger grant of const. Power, and create minimal div exceptions to Strawbridge Passa and 1369 1332(d) CAFA Rules Fed Question and Arising Under: 1331 Only parcels out a small amount of possible cases/issues Mottley and Louisville: Anticipatory ∆ doesn’t allow for a federal question to arise: we go in order for a reason NY Post and Andrew Cuomo Hypo Merrill Dow: This particular claim can’t be in Fed Crt b/c no private right of action was conferred by Cong in the FDCA. Only FDA could bring suit, so state crt has jur Grable /Darue Test for when a state claim depends upon fed action Test Fed crts have jur over state claim when: Fed law is essential element Substantial fed interest is implicated Fed issue is contested (not just lurking) 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fed jur won’t disrupt balance of fed/state crts SC: here the tests are met, and the last is ok b/c the situation is unique Rules of Diversity for… o Individuals State Citizenship: Common law concept of DOMICILE Must be “citizen,” not domicile (BUT Courts equate citizenship with domicile) State where one has taken up residence ( is physically present within domicile) and with the intent to reside indefinitely o Indefiniteness only means open-ended no definite plans at that particular time or upon particular event Having residence in the state is necessary but not sufficien t for establishing domicile just having residence is not enough Mas v Perry: 2 way mirror case w/ Frenchman, MISS and LA. even though one may never plan to go back, if you never establish new domicile, still remain domiciliary of original. o Aliens : Non-permanent: not residents of any state; cant be part of any diversity Permanent: considered citizens of the states where they are domicile o Executor/infant/ in competent : legal representative is citizen of the same state as party being represented o Corporations: 28 U.S.C. 1332(c): 1332 (c)(1): Corporations are citizens for diversity purposes of both the state where their principal place of business is located the state in which they are incorporated Principal Place of Business: Most Courts use either the total activity test : determines corporation’s principal place of business based on all aspects of the corporation’s activity: considers both nerve center and production activities of the corporation. There’s also…
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/10/2011 for the course LAW Civ Pro taught by Professor Arkin during the Spring '10 term at Fordham.

Page1 / 8

CivProNotESForOCT6 - a 1369 Multiparty Disasters and Minimal Diversity Passa v Derderian 308 F.Supp 2d 43(DRI 2004 note Hertz Corp v Friend 2010 WL

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online