Civil Procedure Flashcards
A resident of State A (which has only one judicial district) properly brought a diversity action in federal court against a resident of the Western District of State B and a resident of the Eastern District of State C for a cause of action that arose form events that occurred in the Northern District of State D. In which judicial districts is venue proper?
Only in the Northern District of State D.
Venue is proper only in the Northern District of State D, where the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Venue is not proper in the judicial district of either defendant’s residence; the rule states that venue is proper in “a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state.” Since the defendants reside in different state, neither of their judicial districts of residence is proper in a single action. State A is not a proper venue because a plaintiff’s residence is not a valid basis for fixing venue.
A resident of City A (located in the N. Dist. Of State A) brought a diversity action against a resident of City B (located in the E. Dist. Of State B). The cause of action arose in City B. The defendant commutes daily from his home in City B to his office in CityA and would find it much more convenient to litigate the action there than in City C, where the appropriate court for the Eastern Dist. of State B is located. The plaintiff would also find it more convenient to litigate in City A, but will go to City C if necessary.
May the action be litigated in City A?
Yes, if the defendant waives proper venue.
The action may be litigated in City A because improper venue may be waived. The defendant may inform the P that he will waive an objection to venue in City A. Given that the P has indicated a willingness to bring the action to City C if necessary, the D would not seem to gain any advantage by insisting on proper venue under 28 USC section 1391, improper venue may be waived.
(The place where process is served as no effect on venue.
Explain diversity of citizenship.
Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is available when:
- There is complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that each P must be a citizen of a different state from every D; and
- The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Explain supplemental jurisdiction.
When the federal court has subject matter Jx over one claim, it has discretion to exercise supplemental jx OVER RELATED CLAIMS THAT DERIVE FROM THE SAME COMMON NUCLEUS OF FACT AND ARE SUCH THAT A PLAINTIFF WOULD ORDINARILY BE EXPECTED TO TRY THEM IN A SINGLE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.
There are restrictions on the use of supplemental jx when the use of supplemental jx would be contrary to diversity jx. In terms of third-party practice, claims by a P against an impleaded party may not use supplemental jx to circumvent the diversity state. However, claims by a D are not listed among the restrictions. Thus, supplemental jx is available to a D (third party P) against a 3rd party D. Therefore, the first driver may use supplemental jx to have his claim against the second driver heard in federal court. This would be true even if they were from the same state, so long as the claim was a true indemnity claim.
