This document outlines the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction in civil cases. It discusses that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction if the cause of action arises under federal law or the parties are citizens of different states. For diversity jurisdiction over corporations, the corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and principal place of business. The principal place of business is generally where the corporation's headquarters or "nerve center" is located, or where the bulk of its operations take place. For insurance companies, the insurer is deemed a citizen of the state where the insured is a citizen. The document would evaluate a hypothetical case to determine if diversity and subject matter jurisdiction requirements are met.
Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court - Violations of State Law, Court Rules, Attorney Ethics, Moral Turpitude - Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Sacramento - California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim - California Supreme Court - Paula D. Salinger Judge Pro Tem Sacramento Superior Court - Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section Officer Family Law Executive Committee - Judge Robert Hight - Judge James Mize Sacramento County Superior Court
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas
This document outlines the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction in civil cases. It discusses that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction if the cause of action arises under federal law or the parties are citizens of different states. For diversity jurisdiction over corporations, the corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and principal place of business. The principal place of business is generally where the corporation's headquarters or "nerve center" is located, or where the bulk of its operations take place. For insurance companies, the insurer is deemed a citizen of the state where the insured is a citizen. The document would evaluate a hypothetical case to determine if diversity and subject matter jurisdiction requirements are met.
This document outlines the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction in civil cases. It discusses that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction if the cause of action arises under federal law or the parties are citizens of different states. For diversity jurisdiction over corporations, the corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and principal place of business. The principal place of business is generally where the corporation's headquarters or "nerve center" is located, or where the bulk of its operations take place. For insurance companies, the insurer is deemed a citizen of the state where the insured is a citizen. The document would evaluate a hypothetical case to determine if diversity and subject matter jurisdiction requirements are met.
This document outlines the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction in civil cases. It discusses that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction if the cause of action arises under federal law or the parties are citizens of different states. For diversity jurisdiction over corporations, the corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and principal place of business. The principal place of business is generally where the corporation's headquarters or "nerve center" is located, or where the bulk of its operations take place. For insurance companies, the insurer is deemed a citizen of the state where the insured is a citizen. The document would evaluate a hypothetical case to determine if diversity and subject matter jurisdiction requirements are met.
The question is does the Federal Court have SMJ over an action between the P and D? . State !ut"orit# o$ Judicia% Po&er 'JP) !. Article III, Section 1 o the Constitution create Judicial Power in !1) Su"re#e Court and !$)inerior courts as Con%ress ordain and establish& (. State !ut"orit# o$ Ori)ina% Jurisdiction 'OJ* !. Article III, Section $ o the Constitution states 'udicial Power shall e(tend to all Cases, in )aw and *quit+, arisin% under this Constitution, the )aws o the ,nited States, and Treaties and to Controversies between citi-ens o dierent states& +. In order or the FC to have SMJ over an action between the P and ., the!1) Cause o Action !C/A) #ust arise under Federal 0uestion or !$) .iversit+ o Citi-enshi"& ,. Federal 0uestion? !. Con%ress activates so#e o the JP o Art& III, 1 $ throu%h ,&S&C 11221 3 /J o Civil C/A arise under Constitution, the )aws o the ,nited States, and Treaties& -. I Federal 0uestion then state. ot"er&ise state State La& CO! /. .iversit+ o citi-enshi"& !. Con%ress activates so#e o the JP o Art& III, 1 $ throu%h ,&S&C 1122$ 3 FC #a+ hear S) C/A between citi-ens o dierent states and controvers+ 4 567,888 e(clusive o interest and cost& I. State a0ount o$ contro1ers# and i$ 2 34/5666 -. Strawbrid%e v& Curtis "rovides co#"lete diversit+ at the ti#e action is co##enced in order to have diversit+ 'urisdiction 3 *ach Plainti #ust be diverse ro# each deendant I& .eter#ine i co#"lete diversit+ 3 Person& a. State on%# issue re0ained is citi7ens"i8 o$ 8arties. b. ,se Mas v& Perr+ i& To be a citi-en o a State within the #eanin% o 1 122$, natural "erson #ust be both a citi-en o the ,nited States and a do#iciliar+ o that State& ii& This deter#ination o one9s State citi-enshi" or diversit+ "ur"oses is controlled b+ ederal law, not b+ the law o an+ State& iii& A "erson9s do#icile is the "lace o :his true, i(ed, and "er#anent ho#e and "rinci"al establish#ent, and to which he has the intention o returnin% whenever he is absent therero#;& iv& The test o Mas v& Perr+ is i. A chan%e o do#icile #a+ be eected onl+ b+ a co#bination o two ele#ents< . ta=in% u" residence in a dierent do#icile with (. the intention to re#ain there& +. State $acts o$ 0o1e to a di$$erent state. ii. For diversit+ "ur"oses, citi-enshi" #eans do#icile> #ere resident in the State is not suicient& v& State ne& issue is &"et"er to re0ain& vi& Show Intention to re#ain 3 ?ordon v& Steel i. It is the citi-enshi" o the "arties at the ti#e action is co##enced which is controllin%& /ne do#iciled in a state when a suit is be%un is :a citi-en o that state within the #eanin% o the Constitution, Art& III, Section CI@I) PA/C*.,A*S /,T)IB* Pa%e 1 o 2 $& ii. Proo o Intent to re#ain to "er#anentl+ is not the test& I a new state is to be one9s ho#e or an indeinite "eriod o ti#e, he has acquired a new do#icile& iii. In deter#inin% whether a "art+ has intended to establish a do#icile in the state to which he has #oved, the act inder will loo= to such circu#stances as his declarations, e(ercise o "olitical ri%hts, "a+#ents o "ersonal ta(es, house o residence, and "lace o business& i1. It is not enou%h to intend to #a=e the new state one9s ho#e& It is the intention at ti#e o arrival which is i#"ortant& 1. State 9acts t"at s"o&s 8er0anent%# 0o1ed or 1ice 1ersa. 1ii. State a%ternati1e 1ie&s i$ an# o$ 0o1e. II& .eter#ine i co#"lete diversit+ 3 Cor"oration a. Accordin% to $C ,&S&C& 122$ sa+s citi-enshi" is "lace o incor"oration and o the State where it has its "rinci"al "lace o business&& i. State &"ere incor8orated. ii. State 1arious Princi8a% P%ace o$ -usiness. iii& Accordin% to /lsen and in the the 7 th Circuit, In a""l+in% :total activit+ : !TAT) test to deter#ine "rinci"al "lace o business when deter#inin% e(istence o diversit+ 'urisdiction, two tests co#"risin% total activit+ test are involved< i. the :nerve centerD test, under which the state in which the cor"oration has its nerve center, or :brain,D is its "rinci"al "lace o business> ii. and the :"lace o activit+D test, under which the state in which the cor"oration carries out its o"erations is it "rinci"al "lace o business& iv& Accordin% to /lsen, consider all circu#stances surroundin% a cor"oration business to discern PPE& v& Berve Center F The ne(t question is whether a arFlun% cor"oration F/lsen F .eter#ination o "rinci"al "lace o business o cor"oration or diversit+ "ur"oses be%ins with %eneral rules o co#"onent tests< when considerin% cor"oration whose o"erations are ar lun%, sole nerve center o that cor"oration is #ore si%niicant in deter#inin% "rinci"al "lace o business> when cor"oration has its sole o"eration in one state and e(ecutive oices in another> "lace o activit+ o cor"oration is "assive and the :brainD o the cor"oration is in another state, the sites o the cor"oration9s brain is %iven %reater si%niicance i. E1a%uate and State &"# or &"# not: I$ not $ar-$%un) t"en 0o1e on. vi& Place o Activit+ F The "rinci"al "lace o business o a cor"oration with its cor"orate headquarters in one state and its sin%le activit+ in another will %enerall+ be in the state o its o"erations& CI@I) PA/C*.,A*S /,T)IB* Pa%e $ o 2 i. E1a%uate and s"o& i$ ad0in o8eration in one state. I$ not 0o1e one; vii& TAT !7 th Cir&) 3 The PPE o a cor"oration wG si%niicant ad#in authorit+ and activit+ in one state and lesser e(ecutive oice but "rinci"al o"eration in another state is %enerall+ the district o the or#er& i. E1a%uate and s"o&5 i$ not 0o1e on viii& Is the cor"& a act, where sole o"eration in one state and e(ecutive oicers in another? i. E1a%uate and s"o&: ii. E1a%uate i$ acti1it# is not 8assi1e and t"us a%%o&in) ner1e center to be PP-. iii. E;8%ain &"ere NC and brain <. i1. E;8%ain i08ortance o$ acti1ities to o1era%% 8ur8ose. . Use Cor8oration 1isibi%it# test and s"o&. i;. Conc%ude T!T and &"#: III& .eter#ine i co#"lete diversit+ 3 Insurance Cor"oration a. Accordin% to $C ,&S&C& 122$ sa+s citi-enshi" is "lace o incor"oration and o the State where it has its "rinci"al "lace o business&& i. State 8%ace o$ incor8oration ii& State PP- b. Accordin% to $C ,&S&C& 122$ 3 in an+ direct action a%ainst the insurer o a "olic+ where the insurer is not 'oined as a "ar+ deendant, the insurer shall be dee#ed a citi-en o the state o which the insured is a citi-en& i. State insured and state c. Is insured na#e? i so i. I$ so state and e;8%ain citi7en. IV. Conc%usion = a. S"o& citi7en o$ 8%ainti$$ b. S"o& citi7ens"i8 o$ De$endatn c. Is t"ere tota% di1ersit#: d. Is t"ere SMJ: CI@I) PA/C*.,A*S /,T)IB* Pa%e 2 o 2
Paula Salinger Fraud on the Court - Violations of State Law, Court Rules, Attorney Ethics, Moral Turpitude - Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc Sacramento - California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim - California Supreme Court - Paula D. Salinger Judge Pro Tem Sacramento Superior Court - Sacramento Bar Association Family Law Section Officer Family Law Executive Committee - Judge Robert Hight - Judge James Mize Sacramento County Superior Court
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas