OLnotes(divers_Fedques_Remov)

OLnotes(divers_Fedqu - Where there is a more convenient forum even if jurisdiction is proper(venue and personal jurisdiction court will dismiss and

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Where there is a more convenient forum, even if jurisdiction is proper (venue and personal jurisdiction) court will dismiss and allow P to bring the suit again in another system. Rule 1406 allowed a transfer NOTE: under some circumstances the fact that the chosen state’s laws are less attractive to the ∆ could be used to defeat a motion to dismiss for FNC. ie: (if the state chosen by the is the only place where she can get an adequate remedy) Choice of law in action: ∆’s move for change to PA from CA b/c of inconvenience (witnesses, evidence. ..). Rule from Klaxon v. Stentor kicked in: fed crts must follow conflict of laws rules prevailing in state they sit. , when case gets to PA, PA rules apply. From PA they applied for FNC. Couldn’t do in CA b/c CA won’t allow for a CA party to be moved to foreign jur SC: A court can transfer to the forum where it’s most expeditious (witnesses, evidence. ..) based upon a test Test for FNC Is there an alternative What are the public interests for transfer? (Witnesses, subpoenas. ..) (Balanced against) What are the private ones? (local controversies should be tried at home Rule: Un-favorability of another forum’s laws should only matter when there’s no other remedy to render justice Gonzalez v. Chrysler: Mex law limits awards to $2500 so they bring suit in MI. 5th Cir: inadequacy of remedy doesn’t matter b/c Mexico has a legal system B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts: The Restrictions on Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 1. Diversity of citizenship: 28 U.S.C. 1332; cf. 28 U.S.C. 1369; CB 854- 864; Passa v. Derderian, 308 F.Supp 2d 43 (DRI 2004); note Hertz Corp v. 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
Friend 2010 WL 605601 resolving issues regarding a corporation’s principal place of business Diversity 1332, 1369 D IVERSITY OF C ITIZENSHIP Fed cts hear diversity cases to protect out-of-staters from local prejudice – fed cts can hear state claims if parties are diverse 1.) Diversity cases governed by § 1331 (statute, not a Fed Rule) discusses citizenship, not residence… important to use right words a. 2 big requirements under § 1331 i. citizens of different states AND ii. amount in controversy is over $75K b. Citizenship of Different States i. Complete Diversity all Π s in suit are citizens of diff states than all s in suit at time suit is brought 1. this comes from statutory interpretation of § 1331 in Strawbridge v Curtiss a. if there is a problem w/ complete diversity, Π can dismiss the non- diverse unless that is indispensable under R 19 2. Article II of the Constitution allows diversity jurisdiction if minimal diversity as long as some parties are diverse – much broader than the narrow Strawbridge reading of complete diversity ii. Citizenship for diversity purposes 1. humans where they’re domiciled (state where person has taken up residence w/ intent to reside indefinitely – no definite intent to leave and make a home elsewhere) - ** remember, you don’t acquire a
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 / 14

OLnotes(divers_Fedqu - Where there is a more convenient forum even if jurisdiction is proper(venue and personal jurisdiction court will dismiss and

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