Thursday audio--Section A, Section B. Essay # 5 posted at noon (it erroneously went up for a bit this morning, then went back up at the scheduled time) and due next Thursday. I would remind everyone to read all the assigned materials in that section, even stuff we did not discuss in class, to get a full understanding of how summary judgment works.
CivProachella tomorrow. I know many people will be attending a 3 p.m. Mass for Good Friday. The class will be audio-recorded, as always.
We will finish Diversity Jurisdiction, so read and/or review all pieces of that. What are Mrs. Mas' possible domiciles and where did the court land as to her citizenship and why?
• Consider the bases for jurisdiction of the following:
• A (PR) v. X (DC)
• A (Cuba) v. X (FL)
• A (Cuba) v. X (Venezuela)
• A (TX) & B (China) v. X (Taiwan)
• A (TX) & B (FL) v. X (Taiwan) & Y (FL)
• A (Cuba/Lawful permanent resident domiciled in FL) v. X (FL)
• A (NY) v. X (US Citizen domiciled in France)
• How do you determine domicile for corporations? What about for non-corporate business entities? What is the significance of entities having (potentially) multiple domiciles? Is there diversity jurisdiction in Morgan? What about in VOA?
• What happens if adverse parties are entities with multiple citizenships? Consider whether there is jurisdiction (and on what bases) in the following cases:
• A, Inc (DE/DE) v. X, Ltd. (NJ/Canada)
• A LLC (NY/Mexico) v. X, Ltd. (NJ/Canada)
• What is the purpose of the amount-in-controversy requirement? How do you determine if it is satisfied? What if the case seeks equitable relief (such as specific performance or an injunction)?
• Plaintiff files in state court and wants to make clear the case cannot be filed in federal court because of the amount-in-controversy, by dramatically being .01 below the threshold. The complaint states "The amount in controversy is $ 74,999.99 and not one cent more." What did the lawyer do wrong, if the goal was to be .01 below?
We move to Supplemental Jurisdiction, which involves § 1367, an unfortunately confusing statute. For tomorrow, prep § 1367(a) and (c); FRCP 18 and 82; and Glannon pp. 253-61 and 267-70. Consider whether there is supplemental jurisdiction in VOA and in Godin and why. Consider whether there is supplemental jurisdiction over Winston's counterclaims and why. What might cause the court to decline jurisdiction under (c)? When should the parties and court rely on § 1367(a) and how does that show problems with VOA's complaint? Why is it preferable to establish diversity jurisdiction rather than rely on § 1367?
• What is the connection between § 1367(a)'s standard and the joinder rules of FRCP 13, 14, and 20?
• Ford says § 1367(a) reaches the limits of Article III. What does that mean?
• Recall the old (fictional) contract claim between VOA and BSO. Can it be joined under the rules? Is there jurisdiction?
