Subject Matter Jurisdiction Checklist

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Checklist A. Original Federal Court Jurisdiction— is there original jurisdiction over the claim by the plaintiff? 1. Diversity Jurisdiction— does the action satisfy the requirements of 28 USC §1332 such that the court may hear the case on the basis of diversity? a. Citizenship of the Parties i. Individuals — citizenship for individuals is determined based on their domicile; to establish domicile a person must be physically present in a place and have the intention to remain there for an indefinite period of time. ii. Corporations— State of incorporations or PPB (Hertz) iii. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations— citizens of every state and country of which its partners or menberss are citizens iv. Legal Representative— deemed to be citizens only of the state of the party whom they represent. §1332(c)(2). However, in class actions citizen ship is determed by citizenship of the class representatives b. Diverse Parties— §1332(a) i. Are the adverse parties citizens of different states (including DC & Territories)? IF so, the parties are diverse process to Part A.1.c. ii. Does te case involve a state citizen versus an alien? IF so, the parties are diverse process to Part A.1.c. iii. Does the case inviolve citizens of different states with aliens as additional parties on either or both sides (remember that peranent resident aliens are treates as state citizens for purposes of destrouen diversity? IF so, the parties are diverse process to Part A.1.c. iv. Does the case involve a foreign state as a plaintiff versus a state citizen? IF so, the parties are diverse process to Part A.1.c. v. Not Permissable— aleine v. alien; state citizen + alien v. alien; alien v. alien + state citizen; state citizen v. permanent resident alien from same state; state citizen v. US citizen domiciled abroad. Aliens are not permitted to be on both sides of the “v” unless they each have US state citizen copartes on both sides c. Complete Diversity ALL the parties on one side of the action (“v”) need to be diverse from ALL parties on the other side of the action. Strawbridge v. Curtiss i. YES  Complete Diversity Exists. ii. NO  If not , there is not complete diversity and there can be no diversity jurisdiction over the claim. d. Collusive Joinder— is hter evidence that a party has been improperly or collusivel names simply for the purpose of creating a basis for diversity jurisdiction? If so, the citizenship of the collusively or improperly names party may be ignored for diversity purposes. 28 U.S.C. §1359. e. Amount of Controversy— is the claim for more than $75,000? §1332(a) i. Punitive Damages Included— are theres punitive damages that can be added in to reach the jurisdictional amount? ii. Costs and Prejudgement Intrest Excluded— are there costs and prejudgment interest that need to be excluded before evaluating whether the amoun in controversy is satisfied? Contract intrest may be included. iii. Aggregation— can the plaintiff’s separate claims be aggreagated to satisfy the amoun in controversy? Only if one of the flowing circumstatnces exists:  There are multiple claims by one plaintiff against one defendant  There are multiple plaintiffs asserting an undivided interest  Claims alleging joint & several liablity against multiple defensants are valued based on the entire amount claimed. 2. Federal Question Jurisdiction— does the action satisfy 28 USC §1331? a. Essential Federal Elements— does the claim contain and essential federal element such that it arises under Federal Law? i. Creation Test— is the claim created or brought by pursuant to Federal Law?  YES  If so, the claim arises under Federal Law; proceed to Part A. 2.b.  NO  If not, proceed to the next question. ii. Substantial Federal Interest Test— if the claim is a state law claim, does the plaintiff’s right to relief depend upon the application or interpretation of federal law? If so, is the federal interest implicated “substantial”?  YES If so, the claim contains an essential federal elemtn provided the exercise of federal juridcition would not disturb “Any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsiblites.” Gunn; Grable.  NO  If not, then the claim lack an essential federal element and federal question jurisdiction does not exist. b. Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule— does the essential federal element appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint? Mottley. i. YES Federal Question is appropriate. Remebr the anticipated or actual federal defenses or counterclaims presented that must be ignored for purposes of assessing the propriety of federal question jurisdicition. B. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICITION— if a claim does not qualify for diversity or federal question jurisdiction (or some other basis for orgiianl jurisdiction), does the claim qualify for supplemental jurisdicition under 28 USC §1367? 1. Section 1367(a)— does the broad greant of supplemental jurisdicition in §1367(a) apply to the claim? a. Freestanding Claim— is there a cliam over which the court has orginal jurisdiction? (Part A analysis repeat) b. Common Nucleus of Operative Fact— is the supplemental claim at issue part of the same Article III case or controvesty, menaing is and the freestanding claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact? Gibbs 2. Section 1367(b)— if §1367(a) is satisfied, does §1367(b) nonetheless bar supplemental jurisdicition in this case? a. Diversity Claim? Is court’s jurisdicition bbases solely on diversity? i. NO— ii. YES— If so, proceed to next question