Civ Pro: Diversity Jurisdiction

A plaintiff __________ satisfy the "amount in controversy" requirement for purposes of diversity jurisdiction with __________ that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs of the lawsuit. ACan; a good faith allegation BCannot; merely a good faith allegation CCan; even an allegation in bad faith DMust; proof

A A plaintiff can satisfy the amount in controversy requirement with a good faith allegation that the amount of the damages or injuries in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs of the lawsuit. As stated, a good faith allegation is required. Thus, it is not correct that a plaintiff can satisfy the amount in controversy requirement even with an allegation in bad faith. It is also not correct that the plaintiff must satisfy the amount in controversy with proof; a good faith allegation is sufficient.

Supplemental jurisdiction allows a party to bring a claim that could not otherwise be brought under __________. ADiversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction BFederal question jurisdiction only CDiversity jurisdiction only

A Supplemental jurisdiction allows a claim to be brought that does not meet the standards of either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. The test that determines whether a claim can be brought in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction is called the "common nucleus" test. The supplemental jurisdiction statute permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so related to the claim involving original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. Claims form part of the same case or controversy if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

If one plaintiff properly invokes diversity jurisdiction in federal court, another plaintiff may invoke supplemental jurisdiction to have his claim heard in federal court if _______ as the claim properly invoking diversity jurisdiction, and _______. AThe claim arises from the same nucleus of operative fact; complete diversity is not destroyed BThe claim satisfies diversity jurisdiction to the same extent; complete diversity is not destroyed CThe claim arises from the same nucleus of operative fact; the amount in controversy for diversity is met

A A plaintiff may permissively join his claim with the claim of another plaintiff and invoke supplemental jurisdiction in bringing his claim if the claim arises from the same nucleus of operative fact as the claim properly invoking diversity jurisdiction. (This is the basic requirement for supplemental jurisdiction. The supplemental jurisdiction statute permits a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over claims that are part of the same case or controversy as the original claim. Claims form part of the same case or controversy if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.) Another requirement is that complete diversity is not destroyed. (Complete diversity requires that every plaintiff be of diverse state citizenship from each defendant.) The claim invoking supplemental jurisdiction need not satisfy diversity jurisdiction to the same extent as the original claim or meet the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction (more than $75,000). J0218A

If one plaintiff properly invokes diversity jurisdiction in federal court, what is required for another plaintiff to invoke supplemental jurisdiction to have his claim heard in federal court? AThat the claim arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the claim properly invoking diversity jurisdiction, and that complete diversity not be destroyed BOnly that complete diversity not be destroyed COnly that the claim independently satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction DOnly that the claim arise from the same nucleus of operative fact

A A plaintiff may use permissive joinder to join his claim with the claim of another plaintiff and invoke supplemental jurisdiction in bringing his claim if the claim arises from the same nucleus of operative fact as the claim properly invoking diversity jurisdiction. (This is the basic requirement for supplemental jurisdiction. The supplemental jurisdiction statute permits a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over claims that are part of the same case or controversy as the original claim. Claims form part of the same case or controversy if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.) Another requirement is that complete diversity not be destroyed. (Complete diversity requires that every plaintiff be of diverse state citizenship from each defendant.) Thus, the choices that state only one of the requirements are incorrect. If the claim independently satisfies the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, it may be heard in federal court, and supplemental jurisdiction is not needed. However, as described above, the claim need not have this independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction is available to have the claim heard in federal court.

Which of the following lawsuits can be brought under the diversity jurisdiction statute, assuming the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied? AA suit between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country BA suit between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who is domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen CA suit between citizens of foreign countries

A Assuming the amount in controversy has been satisfied, the diversity statute grants subject matter jurisdiction in suits between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country. However, jurisdiction is denied in suits between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who is domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen. Subject matter jurisdiction is not granted in suits between citizens of foreign countries. There must be a U.S. citizen in the case either as a plaintiff or a defendant.

A claim brought under diversity jurisdiction must involve an amount in controversy: AIn excess of $75,000 BOf $75,000 or more COf at least $100,000 DIn excess of $100,000

A For claims brought under diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must be in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, making the answers with at least $100,000 and in excess of $100,000 incorrect. It is not enough for the claim to involve exactly $75,000; it must be in excess of that amount. Thus, the answer with $75,000 or more is incorrect.

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the term "complete diversity" means that __________ must be a citizen of a different state from __________. AEvery plaintiff; each defendant BOne plaintiff; one defendant CEvery party; every other party

A For purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, complete diversity means that every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant. Complete diversity does not require complete diversity among all parties; multiple plaintiffs may be citizens of the same state, as may multiple defendants, as long as no plaintiff is a co-citizen with any defendant. Thus, it is not correct to state that every party must be a citizen of a different state from every other party. The statement that one plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from one defendant describes minimal diversity and is incorrect for purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (Minimal diversity is all that is constitutionally required, and Congress has granted subject matter jurisdiction based on minimal diversity in some classes of cases such as those falling under the federal interpleader statute. However, Congress has not granted a broad subject matter jurisdiction based on minimal diversity.)

For purposes of a class action lawsuit, the citizenship of __________ is reviewed by the court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. AThe named members of the class BBoth the named and unnamed members of the class CThe unnamed members of the class

A In a class action lawsuit, the citizenship of the named members of the class is reviewed by the court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Thus, there is considerable room for maneuvering to create diversity if the class has members who are citizens of several different states. The citizenship of the unnamed members of the class is irrelevant for diversity jurisdiction purposes.

The Supreme Court has held that a corporation's principal place of business for purposes of diversity of citizenship is: AThe state from which the corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities (i.e., its nerve center) BThe state in which the corporation has its main physical operations CThe state from which the corporation derives the majority of its revenue

A The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation's state citizenship for diversity purposes is the state from which the corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities (i.e., its nerve center). Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, some courts looked to the state in which the corporation has its main physical operations. This test is no longer used, however, and is therefore incorrect. The state from which the corporation derives the majority of its revenue is also an incorrect choice.

Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies: AState substantive and procedural law BState substantive law and federal procedural law CFederal substantive law and state procedural law DFederal substantive and procedural law

B A federal court, in the exercise of its diversity jurisdiction, is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting, including that state's conflict of law rules. However, the federal courts must apply federal procedural law. Federal procedural laws are found in federal statutes and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If there is no federal statute or rule on point, the court must determine whether an issue is substantive or procedural.

The diversity jurisdiction statute grants subject matter jurisdiction over cases between _______, assuming the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied. ACitizens of foreign countries BA citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country CA citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who is domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen

B Assuming the amount in controversy has been satisfied, the diversity statute grants subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country. However, jurisdiction is denied in a case between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who is domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen. Subject matter jurisdiction is not granted in cases between citizens of foreign countries. There must be a U.S. citizen in the case either as a plaintiff or a defendant. J0203

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is considered to be a citizen of: AEvery state in which it is incorporated and every state in which it does substantial business BEvery state in which it is incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business CThe first state in which it was incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business DThe first state in which it was incorporated and every state in which it does substantial business

B For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business. Thus, it is possible for a corporation to have two or more state citizenships for diversity purposes. The rule for a corporation is that, in addition to its states of incorporation, a corporation is a citizen of the one state in which it has its principal place of business. It is not a citizen of every state in which it does substantial business. Likewise, in addition to the principal place of business, a corporation is deemed to be the citizen of every state in which it is incorporated, not just the first state in which it was incorporated. Thus, the choices incorporating those standards are incorrect statements of a corporation's citizenship for diversity purposes.

Federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship is defined in terms of "complete diversity," which means: AAll plaintiffs must reside outside of the chosen venue BNo plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant COne plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from one defendant DEvery party must be a citizen of a different state from every other party

B For purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, complete diversity means that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Complete diversity does not require complete diversity among all parties. Thus, stating that every party must be a citizen of a different state from every other party is incorrect. The statement that one plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from one defendant describes minimal diversity and is incorrect for purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (Minimal diversity is all that is constitutionally required, and Congress has granted subject matter jurisdiction based on minimal diversity in some classes of cases such as those falling under the federal interpleader statute. However, Congress has not granted a broad subject matter jurisdiction based on minimal diversity.) "All plaintiffs must reside outside of the chosen venue" is an incorrect statement of the law.

In a typical class action lawsuit, diversity jurisdiction is determined based on the citizenship of: AAll the members of the class BThe named members of the class only CThe unnamed members of the class only DNeither the named nor unnamed members; class action lawsuits cannot be brought based on diversity jurisdiction

B In a typical class action lawsuit, diversity is determined on the basis of the citizenship of the named members of the class who are suing. Thus, there is considerable room for maneuvering to create diversity if the class has members who are citizens of several different states. Diversity is not determined by all members of the class; as stated above, just the named members of the class are relevant. Accordingly, the citizenship of the unnamed members of the class is irrelevant for diversity jurisdiction purposes. It is also incorrect to say that class action lawsuits cannot be brought based on diversity jurisdiction; they can be brought as long as diversity is present for named members of the class.

Under the concept of __________, when the intervenor's action and the main action have a claim or defense involving a common question of law or fact, intervention may be permitted in the court's discretion. ASupplemental jurisdiction BPermissive intervention CIntervention as a matter of right

B Under the concept of permissive intervention, intervention may be permitted in the court's discretion when the intervenor's action and the main action have a claim or defense involving a common question of law or fact. Intervention as a matter of right occurs when the intervenor claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the disposition of the action may adversely affect that interest. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a claim to be joined that could not, by itself, invoke federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction (because, for example, it is a state claim between parties who are citizens of the same state). In contrast, for intervention as a matter of right and permissive intervention claims, the intervenor must invoke diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

At what point is a party's citizenship determined for purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction? AWhen the cause of action accrues BWhen the lawsuit is filed CWhen the lawsuit is filed (for a claimant) or when process is served (for a defending party) DWhen the lawsuit is filed, but if a party changes his state citizenship after the lawsuit is filed, the new state citizenship controls

B Whether diversity of citizenship exists is determined when the lawsuit is filed. Diversity need not exist when the cause of action accrues, and it is not defeated if a party changes his state citizenship after the lawsuit is filed. Hence, those choices are incorrect. State citizenship for diversity purposes is not controlled by service of process. Thus, the choice that includes "when process is served (for a defending party)" is incorrect.

The diversity jurisdiction statute grants subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving "alienage" jurisdiction, which refers to: AA suit between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who is domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen BA suit between citizens of foreign countries CA suit between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country

C Alienage jurisdiction refers to subject matter jurisdiction over a suit between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country. The diversity statute does not grant jurisdiction in a suit between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who is domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen. The diversity statute also does not grant jurisdiction in a suit between citizens of foreign countries. There must be a U.S. citizen in the case either as a plaintiff or a defendant.

Subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship was founded on the premise that a federal court could: ARelieve overcrowding on state court dockets BGrant relief that a state court could not CProtect an out-of-state party from possible bias in state court

C Diversity jurisdiction was founded on the premise that a federal court could protect an out-of-state party from possible bias in state court. Relieving overcrowded state dockets and granting relief that a state court could not were not purposes for the creation of federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Federal courts will exercise jurisdiction over _______, but not _______ or _______. AActions involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree; criminal proceedings; probate proceedings BProbate proceedings; criminal proceedings; actions involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree CCriminal proceedings; actions involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree; probate proceedings

C For historical reasons, even though the requirements for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction are satisfied, federal courts will not exercise jurisdiction over actions involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony or child custody decree or probate proceedings. Subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship is used for civil cases only, and it is not a basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction over state criminal proceedings. However, federal courts do hear criminal proceedings based on violations of federal criminal statutes. J0215A

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of __________ and __________. AEvery state in which it is incorporated; every state in which it does substantial business BThe first state in which it was incorporated; the one state in which it has its principal place of business CEvery state in which it is incorporated; the one state in which it has its principal place of business DThe first state in which it was incorporated; every state in which it does substantial business

C For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business. Thus, it is possible for a corporation to have two or more state citizenships for diversity purposes. The rule for a corporation is that, in addition to its states of incorporation, a corporation is a citizen of the one state in which it has its principal place of business. It is not a citizen of every state in which it does substantial business. Likewise, in addition to the principal place of business, a corporation is deemed to be the citizen of every state in which it is incorporated, not just the first state in which it was incorporated. Thus, the choices incorporating those standards are incorrect statements of a corporation's citizenship for diversity purposes. J0205B

For diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, what does the term "complete diversity" mean? AOne plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than any defendant BAll plaintiffs must reside outside of the chosen venue CNo plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant DEvery party must be a citizen of a different state than every other party

C For purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, complete diversity means no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Complete diversity does not require complete diversity among all parties. Thus, stating that every party must be a citizen of a different state from every other party is incorrect. The statement that one plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than any defendant describes minimal diversity and is incorrect for purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (Minimal diversity is all that is constitutionally required, and Congress has granted subject matter jurisdiction based on minimal diversity in some classes of cases, such as those falling under the federal interpleader statute. However, Congress has not granted a broad subject matter jurisdiction based on minimal diversity.) "All plaintiffs must reside outside of the chosen venue" is an incorrect statement of the law.

The "amount in controversy" requirement for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied unless the complaint contains: AAn assertion that the amount exceeds $75,000, whether in good faith or not BProof that the amount exceeds $75,000 CA good faith claim that the amount exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs of the lawsuit DA good faith claim that the amount exceeds $75,000, including interest and costs of the lawsuit

C In order to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, a good faith claim that the amount exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs of the lawsuit, is required. Consequently, the choice including interest and costs of the lawsuit is incorrect. Proof that the amount exceeds $75,000 is not needed. However, the claim must be made in good faith. Hence, an assertion that the amount exceeds $75,000, whether in good faith or not does not satisfy the requirement.

For diversity of citizenship purposes, a corporation's principal place of business is: AEither the state from which the corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities (i.e., its nerve center) or the state in which the corporation has its main physical operation BThe state in which the corporation has its main physical operation CThe state from which the corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities (i.e., its nerve center) DThe state from which the corporation derives the majority of its revenue

C The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation's state citizenship for diversity purposes is the state from which the corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities (i.e., its nerve center). The state in which the corporation has its main physical operations is no longer used as the test for principal place of business. Hence, the choices with that test, whether alone or combined with the nerve center test, are incorrect. The state from which the corporation derives the majority of its revenue is also not the basis for determining the corporation's principal place of business.

Which of the following will satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction if the aggregate amount of the claims exceeds $75,000? AA single plaintiff aggregates unrelated claims against several defendants BSeveral plaintiffs bring unrelated claims against a single defendant CA single plaintiff aggregates unrelated claims against a single defendant

C The amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction can be satisfied when a single plaintiff aggregates unrelated claims against a single defendant. The amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied when a single plaintiff aggregates unrelated claims against several defendants. The amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is also not satisfied when several plaintiffs bring unrelated claims against a single defendant; they must be seeking to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common or undivided interest (e.g., joint owners of real estate). J0213A

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the state citizenship of an individual is determined by: AThe state in which the person has a valid driver's license or state identification card BThe state in which the person votes CThe state in which the person is currently residing, even if temporarily DThe state in which the person has his permanent home and to which he intends to return

D For diversity purposes, the state citizenship of an individual is the state in which he has his permanent home and to which he intends to return. The state in which the person is currently residing, even if temporarily, is not the person's home state for diversity purposes. Although voting and holding some sort of state identification will be considered as evidence of an individual's true permanent home, the state in which the person votes and the state in which the person has a valid driver's license or state identification card are not generally determinative of the person's state citizenship.

The state in which a person ______________ is his state of citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction AVotes BIs currently residing, even if temporarily CHas a valid driver's license or state identification card DHas his permanent home and to which he intends to return

D For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the state citizenship of an individual is the state in which he has his permanent home and to which he intends to return. The state in which a person is currently residing, even if temporarily, is not his home state for diversity purposes. Although voting or holding some sort of state identification will be considered as evidence of an individual's true permanent home, the state in which the person votes or the state in which the person has a valid driver's license or state identification card are not generally considered to be determinative of the person's state citizenship.

The "common nucleus" test is used to determine whether a claim can be brought under __________ jurisdiction. ADiversity BPersonal CFederal question DSupplemental

D The "common nucleus" test is used to determine whether a claim can be brought in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction. The supplemental jurisdiction statute permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so related to the claim involving original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. Claims form part of the same case or controversy if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. Supplemental jurisdiction may allow a claim to be brought that does not meet the standards of either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The common nucleus test, however, does not refer to either of those types of subject matter jurisdiction. The common nucleus test has no relation to personal jurisdiction; it involves the subject matter of the claim.

Select the statement that best describes the Erie doctrine: AA federal court exercising federal question jurisdiction applies federal substantive law and state procedural law BA federal court exercising federal question jurisdiction applies state substantive law and federal procedural law CA federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies federal substantive law and state procedural law DA federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies state substantive law and federal procedural law

D Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies state substantive law and federal procedural law. Federal procedural laws are found in federal statutes and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If there is no federal statute or rule on point, the court must determine whether an issue is substantive or procedural. The Erie doctrine does not apply to courts exercising federal question jurisdiction; in those cases, a federal court will apply federal substantive and procedural law. J0214A