Diversity jurisdiction is another type of subject matter jurisdiction. It is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1332.

. No question of federal law is required, and jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the state courts, which means that if the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction are satisfied, the plaintiff can file the action in either federal or state court. The two requirements for federal courts to exercise diversity jurisdiction are: (1) the plaintiff and defendant must be citizens of different states; and (2) the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 1332 provides, in relevant part: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States. Citizenship is not determined by residence, but rather by domicile. As the Fifth Circuit has held, a persons domicile is the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom . . . . A change of domicile may be effected only by a combination of two elements: (a) a taking up residence in a different domicile with (b) the intention to remain there. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974). For example: When a lawsuit is between two individuals, it is easy to determine citizenshipits the state of permanent residence. But what about corporations? The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that a corporation is a citizen of both (1) the state where it is incorporated, and (2) the State where it has its principal place of business. Lower federal courts have been split over exactly what the phrase principal place of business means. And this split, which has been a source of much confusion, is why the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Hertz case. Some courts focused on locating the corporations nerve center, while others gave more weight to where the corporation conducted its actual business activities. Still other courts combined aspects of these two tests

The willfulness requirement refers to the deliberateness of the creditor's conduct and its knowledge of the

Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 1982). In fact, our supreme court has previously so held. See Great Southwest Fire Ins. v. Triple "I" Ins. Serv., Inc., 151 Ariz. 283, 286, 727 P.2d 336, 339 (1986) (judgment entered in violation of automatic stay is void). bankruptcy filing. Davis v. United States (In re Davis), 201 B.R. 835, 837 (Bankr. S.D. Ala.1996). Despite having notice of the Debtor's bankruptcy filing and her subsequent discharge,IndyMac repeatedly attempted to collect its pre-petition debt from the Debtor personally bycontacting the Debtor over the telephone and through the mail. Willfulness generally connotes intentional action taken with at least callous indifference for the consequences." In re Novak, 223 B.R. at 367(citing In re Jove Engineering, 92 F.3d at 1555(quoting Sizzler Family Steak House, Inc. v. Western Sizzlin Steak House, 793 F.2d 1529, 1535 (11th Cir. 1986)). It is generally accepted that a violation of the automatic stay may be sanctioned as a contempt of court.

In re Novak, 223 B.R. 363, 367 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997)(citing In re Jove Engineering, 92 F.3d 1539, 1546 (11th Cir. 1996)). See In re Albany Partners, Ltd., 749 F.2d 670, 675 (11th Cir.1984) (acts taken in violation of the automatic stay are generally deemed void and withoSection 362(h) provides that [a]n individual injured by any willful violation of stay provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages. An act is deemed to be a willful violation under 362(h) if the defendant knew of the automatic stay, and intentionally committed the act regardless of whether the violator specifically intended to violate the stay. Jove Engg v. IRS, 92 F.3d 1539, 1555 (11th Cir. 1996).ut effect). The key to this decision is reading the phase with respect to the debtor in 362(c)(3) as distinguishing between one debtor, who has had a prior case dismissed within a year, and another, jointly-filing debtor, who has not.

3. What limitation on the scope of the stay termination under 362(c)(3) is implied by the phrase with respect to any action taken? Answer: The stay terminates only in connection with a formal judicial or administrative actions commenced before the bankruptcy filing. The reported decisions have held that by terminating the stay as to any actions taken, 342(c)(3) affects only formal actions that were taken prior to the time of the bankruptcy filing. In re Harris, 2006 WL 1195396 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio, May 01, 2006); In re Bell, 2006 WL 1132907 at *2 (Bankr. D. Colo., April 27, 2006); In re Paschal, 337 B.R. 274, 280 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006). In re Paschal explains the rationale for this holding:

The reported decisions have held that by terminating the stay as to any actions taken, 342(c)(3) affects only formal actions that were taken prior to the time of the bankruptcy filing. In re Harris, 2006 WL 1195396 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio, May 01, 2006); In re Bell, 2006 WL 1132907 at *2 (Bankr. D. Colo., April 27, 2006); In re Paschal, 337 B.R. 274, 280 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006). In re Paschal explains the rationale for this holding: Based on the usage of the term action in 362(a)(1), 362(b)(1), (2)(A), (4), (8), (14), (15), (16), (22), and (25)(A) and (B), and 362(c)(3)(C)(ii), the court concludes that the term action means a formal action, such as a judicial, administrative, governmental, quasijudicial,

or other essentially formal activity or proceeding. Furthermore, the action with respect to which the stay terminates is an action taken, which means an action in the past, prior