1.

The issue is whether there is subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s lawsuit against
defendant.

Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's ability to hear a specific case based on the issue in
the case. There are two types of subject matter jurisdiction. One example is a federal question.
This is when a plaintiff is claiming against a defendant using a federal statute, or requesting the
court to interpret a federal statute. Such a complaint must suffice the Mottley rule, or a well
pleaded complaint. This means the federal issue in question must arise from the plaintiff’s
complaint, and can not be an issue that arises from the defendant's defense.

Here, Plaintiff has a claim against defedant’s speak and remarks on his political website.
In his complaint, the plaintiff has argued that the First amendment does not shield a defendant
from a defamation claim under these circumstances. While the defendant is also using a federal
Amendment, the first Amendment, as a defense, since the plaintiff brought the first Amendment
issue in his original complaint, the Mottly rule is fulfilled. Furthermore we see that the plaintiff is
petitioning the court to interpret the application of a federal amendment to his case against
Defendant. Therefore subject matter jurisdiction would be fulfilled under federal question.

Another type of subject matter jurisdiction is diversity. For diversity, a plaintiff can make
a state claim against a defendant but both parties must be completely diverse from each other.
Therefore they must be domiciled in separate states. The domlice is checked at the time the
lawsuit is filed. A person's domicile is where the individual is present and intends to remain
indefinitely. Furthermore a person keeps their old domicile until they acquire a new one. Finally
in a diversity action, the amount in controversy must exceed 75,000 to be a valid diversity
jurisdiction claim.
Here plaintiff is domiciled in State A, as that is his primary residence and the state he
plans to reside in indefinitely. Plaintiff is also claiming a state tort claim of defamation in his
lawsuit beside the federal question. Here, defendant used to live in state A. However since he
moved, his domicile has changed to state b. This can be proved from his actions. He votes,
pays taxes and owns property in state B. Furthermore, he has told his friends and family that he
plans to remain in State B for the time being. Therefore the court will establish his domicile in
state B, creating diversity between defendant and plaintiff, thus fulfilling the first requirement of
diversity jurisdiction. Finally the amount of controversy is well beyond the 75,000 dollar
threshold and therefore diversity jurisdiction is met. Diversity is met without the need of
supplemental jurisdiction and therefore it will not be discussed further. The court has both
diversity and federal question jurisdiction over the lawsuit.

2. The issue is whether the district court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Personal jurisdiction must be established for a party to be subject to a lawsuit. Personal

jurisdiction is the ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendant or item of
property. Therefore the party must be within the reach of the court. A person's domicile is
looked at by the court to establish personal jurisdiction. As stated above, a person is domiciled
at the state they have a presence and intend to remain there. Long arm statutes are used to
grant jurisdiction in cases when one party is in a different state but since they are met they will
not be discussed further.

As established above, Defendant is domiciled in state B. However the case is currently

on court in state A. Therefore, the court will require a deeper analysis to grant personal
jurisdiction over the defendant.

A court can have jurisdiction over an out of state party if minimum contacts are met. The
Supreme Court has held that, “ due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to
a judgment in personam. He have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance
of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Thus a party
that has interactions with the forum state, may be subject to its jurisdiction. The court
traditionally looks for related transactions with the forum state, state interest in trying the case,
burden on the defendant on having the case in the forum state and purposeful availment.
Purposeful availment means the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of
conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its
laws. This can be seen as a stream of commerce- goods from the manufacturer that pass
through state lines, effects test- intentional act expressly aimed at the forum state causing harm
the D knows is likely to be suffered in forum state and finally, foreseeability.

Here, while the defendant was domiciled in state B, his political website mostly focused
and discussed events in state A. The defendant was also better known in state A, the website
received the most hits from state A, and most advertisements were directed towards citizens of
state A. Therefore, the court can reasonably assume that the defendant purposefully availed
himself to State A. He received the profits and benefits of conducting his business there, and
therefore should be subject to their court. In conclusion, State A would have personal
jurisdiction over the defendant.