Civ Pro - Diversity Flashcards
(2 cards)
While working on a site in State A, a State B construction worker was standing near a steel crane when the crane’s boom swung near a high tension power line. The worker was electrocuted and severely injured. The worker filed an action in federal district court against the power company that owns the power lines. The action seeks $500,000 and alleges that the power company’s negligent construction, maintenance, and operation of the power lines caused the injury. The power company is a State A corporation and all its operations are in State A. The power company filed a third-party complaint against the owner-operator of the crane, a State B citizen. The third-party claim is based on state law and alleges that the crane’s owner-operator is liable to the power company for any liability the power company has to the injured worker. The worker amended his complaint to add a state law negligence claim for $500,000 against the crane’s owner-operator.
Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the worker’s claim against the owner-operator of the crane?
A No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker’s claim against the owner-operator of the crane.No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker’s claim against the owner-operator of the crane.
B Yes, because the claim arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the worker’s claim against the power company.Yes, because the claim arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the worker’s claim against the power company.
C Yes, because all claims asserted arose from a common nucleus of operative fact.Yes, because all claims asserted arose from a common nucleus of operative fact.
D Yes, because the State B worker has sufficient contacts with State A.
A No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker’s claim against the owner-operator of the crane.No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker’s claim against the owner-operator of the crane.
The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the worker’s claim against the owner-operator of the crane. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is available when (i) there is complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant; and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The citizenship of an individual is his domicile, and a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business. Here, the worker is from State B and the power company is a State A corporation with all its operations (and therefore its principal place of business) in State A. The plaintiff’s claim is for $500,000, satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. Accordingly, there is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this claim. Once one claim satisfies the requirements for original federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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. However, for cases based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction is not available for claims by the plaintiff against persons made parties under the impleader rules when use of supplemental jurisdiction would be contrary to the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. In the instant case, the owner-operator shares state citizenship with the worker and was made a party when the power company impleaded him on a claim for indemnity. Because a claim by the worker against the owner-operator would circumvent the complete diversity requirement, supplemental jurisdiction is not available for that claim. Hence, (A) is correct. (B) and (C) are incorrect because supplemental jurisdiction cannot be used to override the requirements of diversity jurisdiction for claims by a plaintiff against an impleaded party (as is the case in this question). (D) is an incorrect statement of law, and irrelevant. First, subject matter jurisdiction (the power to hear a case) must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction (the power over a particular defendant). A court technically may have subject matter jurisdiction (for example, when diversity jurisdiction is satisfied) without having personal jurisdiction over one of the defendants because the defendant has insufficient contacts with the jurisdiction. Furthermore, a plaintiff consents to the personal jurisdiction of the court by filing suit. Here, that means the State B worker submitted to personal jurisdiction in State A by filing suit.
A resident of State A sued a resident of State B in federal district court in State B for breach of contract. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into in State C and was to be performed in State D. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant failed to perform.
While hearing this case, what substantive law should the federal district court apply?
A The law that the State D state court would apply.
B The law that the State C state court would apply.
C The law that the State B state court would apply.
D The law that the federal district court believes most logically applies.
C The law that the State B state court would apply.
The court should apply the law that the State B state court would apply. In a diversity case, the federal court applies the law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which the federal court is located. This includes the state’s choice of law rules. In the instant case, the federal court sitting in State B may well, as an end result, apply the law of State D or State C, but if it does so, it will be because State B’s choice of law rules require such a result. (A) and (B) are incorrect because the answers imply that the federal court will apply State D’s or State C’s choice of law rules, which is incorrect. (D) is incorrect because the federal court cannot ignore the law the state would apply even though it finds that law to be unsatisfactory
