STUDENT 1:

Question 1. On what basis, if any would a federal district have subject matter over the by plaintiff against defendant.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s .

The federal are courts of limited jurisdiction and have subject matter jurisdiction over federal question causes of action and diversity of jurisdiction causes of action. A federal question claim arises when the arises under an act of Congress, the US Constitution or a US Treaty. A diversity claim is a state based claim between citizens of different states where the damages exceed 75,000. In addition the federal court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a state claim that is related to a valid pending claim in the federal court even though independently that claim could not enter the federal court house so long as the state claim against a D derives from a common nucleus of operative facts.

To determine whether or not a court has jurisdiction over a federal question claim, the court relies on the well pleaded complaint rule. Under the WELL PLEADED COMAPLAINT RULE, federal courts look exclusively to the plaintiff’s complaint and will not consider that a defendant may raise a federal statute as a defense or that the D will assert a related counterclaim involving federal issues. To determine whether or not jurisdiction exists under a diversity of jurisdiction claim, both plaintiff and defendant must be completely diverse and the cause of action must exceed 75,000.00. Citizenship of the parties is based upon where the parties are domiciled. A party’s is where they reside and where they intend to stay.

1.a. Whether or Not the Federal Court Has Federal Question subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff’s claim arises under an act of Congress, the US Constitution, or a US Treaty. Since the claims do not arise out of an act of Congress or a US Treaty an analysis of whether the claim arises out of the US Constitution is required.

Here, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant defamed her pursuant to State A . She further asserts that the defendant cannot be shielded by a defense arising under the First Amendment. Under the well pleaded complaint rule as noted above, the court looks to the face of the complaint and any defenses asserted will not consider that a federal statute raised as a defense.

Since the plaintiff’s claim does not arise out of an act of Congress, the US Constitution, or a US treaty the federal court will not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim. 1.b. Whether or not the federal court has diversity of jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim.

Diversity of jurisdiction exists as noted above when a plaintiff’s state based claim is against a citizen from a different state and the controversy exceeds 75,000.00 in damages. The damages may include punitive damages, attorney fees and interest on a contract but not statutory interest.

Here, plaintiff is domiciled in state A and defendant currently resides in State B. A domicile is determined to be where an individual resides and where he intends to stay. Defendant moved from State A to State B three years ago and has told his family and friends that he still considers State A his home and intends to return their someday. However, He also states that he is happy in State B and votes, pays his taxes, and owns property in State B. Although defendant might argue that State A is really his home, which would break , it is likely that the court will find that he is a domicile of State B. If the court finds him to be domiciled in State B diversity of jurisdiction will exist and if not the court will not have subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, the claim asserted must be for more than 75K in damages. Here, plaintiff’s claim exceeds the threshold as she is claiming 200,000 in damages and 1,000,000 in punitive damages so the threshold is met.

Since both elements of diversity jurisdiction are met the federal would have diversity jurisdiction so long as defendant is determined to be domiciled in State B.

In conclusion, the federal district court would not have federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim but would have diversity of jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim.

Question 2: Would the US District Court for the District of State A have over the Defendant?

Issue 1: Whether or not the federal district court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and if so, would the exercise of jurisdiction comport with fair play and substantial justice.

All federal courts apply the rules of of the state where it is sitting as well as the rules for the 3 types of procedural : personal jurisdiction over a defendant, and quasi in rem jurisdiction. When a party starts a lawsuit and enlists the state or federal court, enlists the state or federal court then “state action” is involved which requires that the be satisfied. The court uses a 2 step inquiry: first it looks at the state law to determine if there exists procedural jurisdiction and if so, it then considers whether the exercise of that jurisdiction complies with due process.

The state process is considered fair if the defendant has with the state of a nature and quality that exercising jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Shoe). The court has to determine whether it is fair to subject an out of state D to a lawsuit in that state – subject a non-domicile to a lawsuit in that state. In addition, the D must have a full and fair opportunity to be heard and must have been properly served with process.

2.a Whether or not the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to establish jurisdiction

A defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with a forum state when he either consents to jurisdiction, is at home in the forum state (or is where a corporation has its principal place of business), in cases of corporations – is incorporated in the forum state, is a non-domiciliary but the court has long-arm jurisdiction or is a non-domiciliary and is served in-state. State A’s long arm statute provides that the courts of State A may exercise jurisdiction over absent defendants to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the Constitution. Long Arm Jurisdiction arises when” 1- a defendant owns, uses possesses realty in a forum state; 2 if the defendant’s tortious act occurs in that state causing property damage or economic injury in that state; 3- the defendant’s tortious conduct occurred outside the state causing injury in the state where the plaintiff’s claim was commenced but he defendant must have targeted that state and; 4- the defendant transacted business in that state.

Here, defendant is a domiciliary of State B but is alleged to have committed a tortious act () outside of that state (State B) that defamed plaintiff pursuant to State A’s law. Since defendant did not consent to jurisdiction and is not at home in State A, the State A long arm statute will be invoked to acquire jurisdiction over him.

Although defendant’s central computer is located in State B and he posts to his website in State B, his political commentary focuses on people and events in State A where he is best known in his career as a political commentator. In fact, defendant’s website receives so many hits from State A that most of his advertisers on his site are State A firms seeking to attract customers from State A, purposefully availing himself to the benefits of State A.

Because defendant specifically targets State A and accepts advertising revenue from advertisers seeking to target State A customers, the State A long arm statute can be appropriately invoked to obtain specific jurisdiction over him, establishing the minimum contacts element needed for personal jurisdiction.

2.b. Whether or not exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

In determining whether traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended, a court generally balances: 1- The closeness of the relationship between the claim and the contact; 2- whether it is convenient to call the defendant into the forum state and; the state's interest in protecting its citizens. Here, since defendant’s minimum contacts sufficiently satisfy the exercise of personal jurisdiction using State A’s long arm statute, and since defendant purposefully avails himself to the benefits of State A, the there is a closeness of relationship between the claim and the contact. In addition, since defendant is well known in State A because it is his old “stomping ground” and recently relocated to State B from State A, it is likely that the court will not fins the State A forum inconvenient. Lastly, State A will have an interest in protecting it’s citizens when out of state defendant’s commit tortious acts outside of their state which cause personal injury within their state.

Since, traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended by exercising long arm jurisdiction over the defendant, due process is afforded to the defendant.

In conclusion, as noted above, the state process of exercising jurisdiction over a defendant is considered fair if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state and that those contacts are of a nature and quality that exercising jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Shoe). Since the defendant has purposefully availed himself and targeted State A and since the exercise of long arm jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice, the court will have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

STUDENT ANSWER 2:

1) Court’s SMJ to Hear the Case

The Court has diversity jurisdiction to hear the case between Plaintiff and Defendant because they are citizens of different states and the in the case exceeds $75,000.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and thus may only hear certain claims. For example, federal courts have jurisdiction over most claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, claims presenting a federal question, claims between citizens of different states or countries, and certain state law claims. For a federal court to have jurisdiction to hear a claim based in state law between two citizens of different states, the parties must be completely diverse. That is, no Plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s complaint must allege damages in excess of $75,000. This case involves a state law claim for defamation asserted by the Plaintiff, who is a citizen of State A against the Defendant who is a citizen of State B. Generally, a party is a citizen of the state in which they are domiciled, and a party’s domicile is established by both their 1) physical presence in the state, and 2) an intent to remain in that state permanently.

In this case, we can assume that P is domiciled in State A because our facts reveal no intent to leave State A and also tell us that P was employed by State A. The facts clearly establish the D is domiciled in State B because the facts state that he votes, pays taxes, and owns real property in State B. Although D refers to State A as “home” and says he would like to return there some day, these are not sufficient statements for a Court to find State A as the D’s domicile and are merely expressions that reflect his fondness for the State he grew up in. Thus because the parties are completely diverse from one another, and the P’s complaint seeks damages in excess of $75,000 the Court will have sufficient subject matter diversity jurisdiction to hear this case.

2) Does the Court Have Personal Jurisdiction Over the Defendant?

The Federal Court most likely has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because he has minimum contacts with State A.

Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, in order for a Court to have valid personal jurisdiction over a Defendant, the Defendant must have 1) minimum contacts with the state, 2) an opportunity to be heard in the suit, and 3) he must have been properly served with process ( of the lawsuit). As established above, D is a domiciliary of State B, therefore in order for P to maintain her action against D in the U.S. District Court for State A, there must be sufficient minimum contacts between the D and State A. A court will find sufficient minimum contacts where a Defendant: 1) consents to the jurisdiction of the Court, 2) is “at home” or domiciled in the state, 3) is a corporate D and is incorporated in the state, 4) is a non-domiciliary but the forum state has an applicable long arm statute, or 5) where the D is a non-domiciliary but he is served while in the forum state. In this case, State A has an applicable long arm statute. Thus, the Court can use long arm jurisdiction to obtain personal jurisdiction over the D, provided that the long arm jurisdiction arises from one of the following: 1) D’s ownership or use of real property in State A, 2) D committed a in State A and caused injury to someone outside State A, 3) D committed a tort outside State A but caused injury within State A, or 4) D transacted business in State A.

In this case, the Court’s long arm jurisdiction would fall under prong 4 above, because D committed a tort outside of State A that caused injury within the State i.e. the defamation outside of State A caused injury to the Plaintiff in State A. The Court must also show that D targeted the state. Here it can be proven that D targeted State A because of the operation of his website. Although his website was produced on a computer in State B, it was published on the internet which made the website available universally, including in State A, focused on events and people from State A, and used advertisers located in State A in order to target State A citizens as potential shoppers. This would be sufficient to show D targeted State A with his website. Additionally, D’s published article about Plaintiff and the allegations that she accepted kickbacks, negatively impacted her employment with the state resulting in her being fired. And further caused detriment to her reputation and future job prospects within the state (or anywhere for that matter) because D refused to take down the article or redact the allegations, therefore, those allegations are available for anyone using the internet to see including potential employers. Additionally an argument may also be made that D transacted business within State A because all of the advertisers he used on his website were from State A. Therefore because the Defendant committed the tort of defamation outside of State A but caused injury to the P located in State A, and because he may have transacted business with state A, the Court will have sufficient long arm jurisdiction over the Defendant.

STUDENT ANSWER 3:

1.

The issue in this case is whether or not the federal district court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for defamation for the article that the defendant published.

Federal courts are limited to certain grounds for which they may assert subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts may assert jurisdiction over claims arising out of a federal question, meaning claims that arise out of federal statutes, the constitution, or a treaty signed by the US. A defense will not give rise to federal question jurisdiction, courts will only look at the claims asserted in the complaint. Federal courts may also assert subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims through diversity jurisdiction when the plaintiff and defendant have complete diversity, meaning they are residents of different state, and the amount in controversy is over $75,000.

A person is a resident of a state if they live there or intend to return there while living in a different state. The standard for residency is subjective, but courts will look at various factors to determine a person’s residency such as where they vote, where they maintain their residence and owns property, and where they work.

In this case the claim is for a state law issue—a tort action for defamation. Therefore the federal court cannot assert subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as a federal question. The defendant raises a first amendment defense, however a defense is not enough for a court to gain subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore there is no subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of a federal question.

However, the court may have subject matter jurisdiction on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. The amount in controversy requirement is met here because the plaintiff has pleaded damages in the amount of $200,00 and an additional claim for $1,000,000 punitive damages.

The only outstanding issue is whether or not there is complete diversity between the plaintiff and the defendant. The facts show that defendant moved from state A to state B three years ago and has since started voting there, paying his taxes there, and he owns property in that state. The defendant says that state A is his home and that he has the intention to return “someday,” but that he is “happy in state b for now.” His stated intention is to move back to state A and that he considers that his home, however his conduct manifests that he is a resident of state B because he votes, pays taxes, and owns property—in addition to saying that he is happy living there. Therefore, defendant is a state B resident. Because plaintiff is a resident of state A and defendant is a state B resident, there is complete diversity.

Because the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000 and because the plaintiff and defendant have diversity, the court may assert subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction.

2.

The issue in this case is whether or not the US District Court in state A may assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant in plaintiff’s action for defamation.

In order for a court to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant their due process rights must not be violated. They must have had minimum contacts with the forum state, they must be given an opportunity to be heard and present a defense, and they must be served with sufficient process.

The defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the forum state district court’s assertion of personal jurisdition would not offense traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. A defendant may have sufficient minimum contacts with a forum state for their due process rights to not be violated if they consent to jurisdiction there; it is their home state; it is the state of incorporation of a corporate defendant; there is a long arm statute that gives the forum state special jurisdiction over the claim; or the defendant was served with process in the forum state.

In this case State A has a long arm statute that grants jurisdiction over absent defendants to the “full extent permitted by the due process clause of the US Constitution.” Therefore, any of the grounds listed above would give a court valid personal jurisdiction. In this case the long arm statute would have to apply to the defendant in order for the assertion of personal jurisdiction because the other grounds are not met.

A long arm statute may grant a court the ability to assert personal jurisdiction if the case is based on real property owned or used in the forum state; tortious conduct in the state; out of state tortious conduct where the harm was felt in the forum state and where the defendant targeted the forum state; and if the defendant transacted business in the forum state.

In this case the tortious conduct—the allegedly defamatory article—was produced out of state (in state B) and posted to a server located and maintained in state B. Therefore in order for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant the defendant must have “targeted” state A because simply putting something into the stream of commerce, or, as in the case, posting something to a website does not automatically give rise to sufficient minimum contacts. In order to determine whether or not a defendant “targeted” a state they will look to see as to whether the defendant solicited business there, made sales there, or provided services there. In cases involving websites the court will look at whether or not the website made sales or invited some sort of participation from out-of-state defendants.

In this case there is evidence that defendant “targeted” state A. His website focuses almost exclusively on people and events in State A and solicits advertisers from state A. The majority of people who visit his website are from State A. While the article was written and published out of state A, because Defendant’s website targets state A he is covered by the long arm statute.

Because the long-arm statute applies to the defendant he has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so as to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Assuming that he was served with valid process and given an opportunity to be heard the district court in state A can assert personal jurisdiction over him.