This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sarah did have a legitimate subject matter jurisdiction claim, and therefore it was proper for Sarah to file suit in federal court. 28 USC §1332(a)(2) states that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75k exclusive of interests and costs, and is between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. Based on the facts presented, Sarah is a citizen of either Alaska or Alabama and Arbusto is a citizen of Mexico. Sarah is suing Arbusto for $280k, which is more than the necessary amount (+$75k) exclusive of interests and costs that is required to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Domicile is achieved through physical presence as well as the intent to remain in that forum. Arbusto did live in AL while the project between PDC and Buscar Petroleo was in operation, however he never purchased himself a home within the forum, he continued to travel back to Mexico, and from the facts presented there was no evidence that he had any intention of staying in AL after the project was completed. Also, there is no information in these facts that Arbusto applied for permanent residency in the US, so his most recent domicile would become his default domicile, which is Mexico. It could be argued that Sarah is a resident of AL as well as Alaska. For the purpose of invoking §1332(a)(2), all that actually matters is that Sarah is a resident of the United States, and Arbusto is a citizen of a foreign state. Therefore, regardless of whether Sarah was a resident of Alaska or AL, there would be complete diversity between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, for the sake of making an official decision, Sarah would probably be found to be a resident of Alaska because that is the forum that she specifically chose to buy a condo in to come home to. While Sarah was physically located in AL, she had no obvious intent on staying there. This can be proven because she while she did rent an apartment in Mobile, she did not sell her place in Alaska, but rather rented it out (which is a temporary situation). Sarah s job was headquartered in Alaska, and while she was in AL for an extended period of time, she knew it was a limited time period, and she was used to a large amount of traveling for her job. One could argue that Sarah did have an intent to remain in AL based on her choice of representation (an AL law firm), but this is irrelevant. Having gotten fired from her job while she was still staying (temporarily) in AL, it was not out of the ordinary or for Sarah to go to a firm in her immediate presence. However, regardless of her choice of representation, Sarah always intended, from these facts, to return to her home in Alaska, and not to be in AL for a very long period of time. Therefore, Sarah would be a resident of Alaska, and the elements are all met for Sarah to invoke diversity jurisdiction under §1332(a)(2). Question 2 What procedural defense could Arbusto raise to Sarah s lawsuit and would it be successful? Arbusto could motion for a dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there is no complete diversity in the case at bar. Without complete diversity between the plaintiff and the defendant, the only way for Sarah (based on what we have learned so far) to invoke federal jurisdiction would be through §1331 (federal question). Because Sarah s original claim did not arise under the constitution, there is no jurisdiction based on §1331. Arbusto would not be successful in his claim, however, because while he was served in AL and he was momentarily living there, he was a citizen of Mexico, and not AL. While Arbusto did live in as well as operate his company from Mobile, he did not own the apartment he lived in- his company did. As was stated above, domicile is achieved through physical presence as well as the intent to remain in that forum. As also was stated above, Arbusto s domicile is considered Mexico, not AL. §1332(4) states that an alien that applies for permanent residency in the US will be deemed a citizen of the state in
Joe can remove this case to federal court.which he resides. could she also include a claim of negligence against the court reporter who took her deposition in Anchorage? To answer this question. based on §1367(a). Even though Sarah is a resident of Alaska and Joe is a resident of AL. Therefore. Sarah is a citizen of Alaska. and it specifically states that he had to travel to Alaska for the discovery process). and Sarah is seemingly asking for more than the required +$75k. and Joe follows all of the correct procedures for removal as set forth in §1441 and §1446). Joe could use §1441(a) to remove the case to federal court. As was stated above. Under §1332(a)(1). the fact that Sarah is choosing to bring suit in AL state court would pretty much give Joe the slight advantage of being in his home state. He also needs to give written notice to Sarah about his choice to remove as well as file a copy of the notice with the State court. as long as he follows the correct procedures for removal that are laid out in §1446(a). This is based on §1441(b). Question 3 Could Joe remove the suit filed against him to federal court? According to §1441(a). and therefore §1441(b) does not feel it is necessary to allow him to remove to federal court. therefore it does not meet the requirement for §1331. In order to decide if the courts have original jurisdiction. as is stated in §1367(b). Nothing in the facts prove that Arbusto has applied for said permanent residency. Could Joe remove the same suit had it been filed in AL and not Alaska? Even if everything above were to be true (Sarah s claim falls under §1332(a)(1). The original jurisdiction of the district courts is founded solely on §1332(a)(1). thereby convincing a judge that he might have had an intent to stay in AL. it can be assumed she would be asking for around the same amount in her suit against Joe. which states that any. and it seems from the facts presented that Joe is a resident of AL (because he is a senior partner at a firm in Mobile. and since Sarah is specifically suing Joe for losing that case. we know she was originally suing Arbusto for $280k. Joe could not remove this case to federal court if Sarah filed it in AL state court as opposed to Alaska state court. there would be complete diversity anyway. because even if Arbusto could somehow be viewed as a citizen of AL because he was physically served in his apartment in AL. He would have to file the notice of removal with a copy of all process.action shall be removable only if none of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. Sarah s claim does not pass the well-pleaded complaint or the creation test. Sarah is a resident of Alaska.. and Sarah does in fact pray for more than $280k. citizens of different states still meet the element of complete diversity. and therefore the courts do not have jurisdiction based on §1331. Question 4 If Sarah files suit in federal court in Alaska for legal malpractice. Generally. Therefore. and not AL. As long as Joe follows these procedures correctly. pleadings and orders served up on him within 30 days of his receipt of notice. therefore. all claims founded under a common nucleus of facts can be added to the original complain and the courts will have supplemental jurisdiction. Sarah was a citizen of Alaska.(b) & (d). claims of which the district courts have original jurisdiction based solely on §1332 shall not have supplemental . we must look at §1367(b) which specifically addresses supplemental jurisdiction founded solely on §1332. we would first have to go back to §1331 or §1332. While it does not state how much Sarah would be praying for from Joe. Sarah s claim of malpractice does not arise under the constitution. the federal courts would have original jurisdiction in this suit. he would still be considered an alien and a citizen of Mexico. Regardless of Arbusto s argument. However. any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the US have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant to the district court.
would that clause be enforceable and could it prevent Joe from being sued in Alaska federal court? Joe would have to invoke §1404 .jurisdiction. into district court. This was done so that someone like Sarah could not bring suit against Joe specifically with purposes of bringing the court reporter with whom she has no diversity with. Question 5 If Sarah signed a contract with Joe containing a forum selection clause specifically naming AL as the sole forum for litigating disputes arising under this contract.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.