DOCSLIB.ORG

Question 1. on What Basis, If Any Would a Federal District Court Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over the Lawsuit by Plaintiff Against Defendant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Question 1. on What Basis, If Any Would a Federal District Court Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over the Lawsuit by Plaintiff Against Defendant STUDENT ANSWER 1: Question 1. On what basis, if any would a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit by plaintiff against defendant. ISSUE 1: Whether or not the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint. The federal courts 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 cause of action 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 domicile 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 law. 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 diversity jurisdiction, 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 district court 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 personal jurisdiction 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 civil procedure of the state where it is sitting as well as the rules for the 3 types of procedural jurisdictions: personal jurisdiction over a defendant, in rem jurisdiction 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 due process clause 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 minimum contacts 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 personal injury 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 (defamation) 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol
    Federal Court Jurisdiction in Civil Forfeitures of Personal Property Pursuant to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Karen L. Fisher* Introduction Civil forfeiture under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1 has become surrounded by much controversy, since the Reagan Administration's introduction in March 1988 of a zero- tolerance policy in the war on drugs. Since then, federal and state drug enforcement activities have included the increasing use of civil forfeiture as a means of deterring illegal drug trafficking, punishing drug dealers and users, and providing additional revenues for the war on drugs. Under the Drug Control Act, a person may forfeit any real or personal property used to facilitate the manufacture, transportation, sale, or possession of illegal drugs or property acquired with proceeds connected with drug trade. 2 This Note will focus on federal civil procedure in cases involving forfeiture of personal property pursuant to the Drug Control Act. The issue considered is whether execution of a civil forfeiture judgment should extinguish federal courts' jurisdiction, thereby precluding a claimant from seeking relief from an adverse judgment. Personal property, especially intangibles, is of particular interest because the situs, or jurisdictional location, of such property is movable and often difficult to ascertain. Civil forfeiture cases under the Drug Control Act traditionally have followed in rem admiralty procedures. Under admiralty rules, the court's jurisdiction continues only so long as it maintains physical control over the property. Hence, the court loses jurisdiction once it executes judg- ment. However, in recent years, several circuits instead have asserted in personam jurisdiction over the government as plaintiff, thereby preserving a losing claimant's right of appeal after execution of the judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
    Case 3:16-cv-01694-M-BN Document 22 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 24 PageID <pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PAUL SHUNATONA, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § No. 3:16-cv-1694-M-BN § WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION, § § Defendant. § FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. Plaintiff Paul Shunatona (“Shunatona” or “Plaintiff”) has filed a combined Motions for Leave to Amend, Dismiss Claim, Enter Stipulation, Abate and Vacate Orders, and Remand to State Court. See Dkt. No. 15. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”), filed a response, see Dkt. No. 20, and Shunatona filed a reply, see Dkt. No. 21. The undersigned issues the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that the Court grant the Motions for Leave to Amend, Dismiss Claim, and Enter Stipulation and deny the Motions to Abate and Vacate Orders and Remand to State Court. -1- Case 3:16-cv-01694-M-BN Document 22 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 24 PageID <pageID> Background Shunatona filed this case against Wells Fargo in Dallas County state court on May 16, 2016. See Dkt. No. 1-5. Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Request for Disclosure alleges two counts against Wells Fargo and seeks to set aside the foreclosure of – and quiet title in Shunatona’s name to – real property located at 11215 Sesame Street, Dallas, Texas 75288 (the “Property”) as well as to affirm Shunatona’s ownership of certain funds currently held by the Texas Comptroller and award damages to Shunatona.
    [Show full text]
  • Adams V. Alliant Techsystems, Inc
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION HARRY ADAMS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 7:99CV00813 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC., and ) By: Samuel G. Wilson HERCULES INCORPORATED, ) Chief United States District Judge ) Defendants. ) This is a personal injury action brought by plaintiffs, employees or former employees at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“Arsenal”), against defendants, Alliant Techsystems, Inc. and Hercules Incorporated, for hearing loss plaintiffs allegedly suffered while working at the Plant. On May 7, 2002, this court entered a memorandum opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants’ first motion for summary judgment. This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs argue that the court erroneously decided that Virginia’s statute of limitation applied to their claims because: (1) not all of the Arsenal is a federal enclave under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and governed by 16 U.S.C. § 457, (2) the defendants agreed not to assert Virginia’s statute of limitations, (3) 16 U.S.C. § 457 does not make Virginia’s statute of limitations applicable to these claims, and (4) even if Virginia’s statute of limitations applies, there are questions of fact for the jury regarding fraudulent concealment that would toll Virginia’s statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below the court will not reconsider its summary judgment opinion. I. Plaintiffs’ argument that part of the Arsenal is not on a federal enclave subject to the National Parks Act, 16 U.S.C. § 457, is a new one, not raised while the summary judgment motion was pending.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaffer V. Heitner: the Supreme Court Establishes a Uniform Approach to State Court Jurisdiction, 35 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 35 | Issue 1 Article 5 Winter 1-1-1978 Shaffer V. Heitner: The uprS eme Court Establishes A Uniform Approach To State Court Jurisdiction Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Bankruptcy Law Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Shaffer V. Heitner: The Supreme Court Establishes A Uniform Approach To State Court Jurisdiction, 35 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 131 (1978), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol35/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES & COMMENTS SHAFFER v. HEITNER: THE SUPREME COURT ESTABLISHES A UNIFORM APPROACH TO STATE COURT JURISDICTION For a century, assertions of state court jurisdiction over persons and property have been governed by different standards.' The bifurcated ap- proach.to jurisdiction' has been most apparent subsequent to International Shoe Co. v. Washington3 which required that the defendant have "minimum contacts"' with the forum as a prerequisite for in personam jurisdiction without overturning the notions of state sovereignty that had historically governed in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction.5 Recently, how- ever, in Shaffer v. Heitner,I the Supreme Court rejected state sovereignty as a basis of in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction and declared that in rem and quasi in rem actions must meet the test of minimum contacts which applies to in personam jurisdiction.' Shaffer arose on appeal from a Dela- I The due process requirements of establishing jurisdiction over persons and property were first declared in Pennoyer v.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
    Case 3:05-cv-00427-L Document 12 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 136 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHRISTOPHER J. BLINCOE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0427-L § F. EARL BLINCOE AND HELEN BLINCOE § FAMILY, L.P., § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, filed April 1, 2005. After careful consideration of the motion, response, record, and applicable law, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.1 Also before the court is Defendant’s Suggestion of Bankruptcy, filed May 18, 2005. Having received notice from Defendant’s counsel on July 27, 2005 that Defendant’s Suggestion of Bankruptcy is now moot, the court denies as moot Defendant’s Suggestion of Bankruptcy. I. Factual and Procedural Background This is a declaratory judgment action brought by Plaintiff Christopher J. Blincoe (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or “Blincoe”) challenging the validity of a lis pendens, and seeking to quiet title, with regard to a parcel of real property located at 1908 Duncanville Road in Dallas County, Texas (hereinafter, the “property”). On November 7, 2003, F. Earl Blincoe and Helen Blincoe Family, L.P. (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “FLP”) filed suit against Christopher J. Blincoe in California state court seeking to recover an unpaid debt in excess of $640,000 (hereinafter, the “California Action”). See Def. Notice of Rem. at Exh. 3-A. In the California Action, FLP alleges breach of contract, default 1Plaintiff did not file a reply to Defendant’s Response and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Blocking Removal from Federal Court Back to State Court
    Case 2:13-cv-05410-NJB-DEK Document 363 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CIVIL ACTION SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY – EAST VERSUS CASE NO. 13-5410 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC et al SECTION: “G” (3) ORDER AND REASONS In this litigation, Plaintiff Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority—East (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages and injunctive relief against ninety-two oil and gas companies whose actions have allegedly caused erosion of coastal lands, leaving south Louisiana increasingly exposed to tropical storms and hurricanes. Plaintiff originally filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, but Defendants removed the matter to this federal Court. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand.”1 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support, the memoranda in opposition, the statements at oral argument, Plaintiff’s petition, the notice of removal, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the motion. Because the Court’s specific basis for jurisdiction has the potential to reverberate throughout a number of other considerations in this litigation—particularly, Plaintiff’s entitlement, if any, to a jury trial, and choice of law questions—the Court has examined all five bases of jurisdiction raised in Defendants’ Notice of Removal. 1 Rec. Doc. 70. Case 2:13-cv-05410-NJB-DEK Document 363 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 83 I. Background A. Factual Background Plaintiff in
    [Show full text]
  • Winning Your Case Before You Go to Trial1
    Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Chapter 16 Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Michelle May O’Neil O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Hon. William Harris 233rd Judicial District Court Family Law Center, 5th Floor 200 East Weatherford Street Fort Worth, Texas 76196 (817) 224-2686 Co-authors: Nathan Anderson Ashley Bowline Russell O’Neil Anderson O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] State Bar of Texas Advanced Family Law Course 2009 Honoring the Past… Embracing the Future Chapter 16 Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Chapter 16 Michelle May O’Neil Founding Partner O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Ms. O’Neil founded the firm with her friend and partner Nathan T. Anderson based on their desire to provide clients with high- quality representation in a personalized atmosphere. She has over 18 years of experience representing men, women, and children related to family law matters such as divorce, child custody, and complex property division. Described by one lawyer as “a lethal combination of sweet-and-salty”, Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Directs State Court to Decide Whether Indian Tribe Can Invoke Sovereign Immunity in Property Dispute
    Legal Sidebari Supreme Court Directs State Court to Decide Whether Indian Tribe Can Invoke Sovereign Immunity in Property Dispute Hillel R. Smith Legislative Attorney July 16, 2018 Indian tribes possess “inherent sovereign authority,” which means, among other things, that they cannot be subject to lawsuits unless the tribe waives or Congress expressly abrogates such immunity. Recently, the Supreme Court in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren ruled that a Washington state court erroneously rejected an Indian tribe’s claim that sovereign immunity foreclosed a lawsuit involving a property dispute between two landowners and the tribe. Citing the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, the state court had reasoned that an Indian tribe’s claim of sovereign immunity did not bar courts from exercising jurisdiction to settle disputes over real property. In reversing the state court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that the state court’s reliance on Yakima was misplaced because that case did not address the scope of tribal sovereign immunity, but only concerned the question of whether a particular federal law permitted state taxation of certain land within an Indian reservation. The Supreme Court directed the lower court to address the plaintiffs’ new contention that an Indian tribe cannot assert sovereign immunity in an action relating to immovable property located in in the territory of another sovereign, namely, in another state. While the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies its ruling in Yakima, the Court’s decision leaves unresolved the underlying issue of whether an Indian tribe may invoke sovereign immunity in cases involving disputes over real property.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards in Moot Cases
    Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards in Moot Cases The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 19761 (the "Act") authorizes an award of attorney's fees to the "prevailing party" in certain civil rights actions.2 The precise meaning of "pre- vailing party," left undefined by the Act, is the subject of much debate." A plaintiff' who has gained his desired relief through final Pub. L. No. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641 (1976) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West 1981)). 1 In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], . or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West 1981) (brackets in original). The Act also authorized fees awards in certain suits brought under the Internal Reve- nue Code. Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-559, § 2, 90 Stat. 2641, 2641 (currrent version at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West 1981)). That provision was re- pealed by the Equal Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 96-481, § 205(c), 94 Stat. 2321, 2330 (1980). Few fees awards were made under section 1988 in tax cases, but the wider applicabil- ity of the new Act will allow more such awards.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. MAURA HEALEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEODORE V. WELLS, JR. KANNON K. SHANMUGAM DANIEL J. TOAL Counsel of Record JAREN JANGHORBANI JOHN S. WILLIAMS PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, STACIE M. FAHSEL WHARTON & GARRISON LLP MICHAEL J. MESTITZ 1285 Avenue of the Americas WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP New York, NY 10019 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 JUSTIN ANDERSON (202) 434-5000 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, [email protected] WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation to compel its compliance with an investigatory document request where jurisdic- tion is based principally on third-party contacts that are unrelated to the subject matter being investigated. (I) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Exxon Mobil Corporation has no parent corporation, and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock. (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Constitutional provision involved ................................................. 2 Statement ......................................................................................... 2 Reasons for
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity-Only Class Actions After Exxon Mobil Corp
    COVER STORIES © 2005 American Bar Association. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Antitrust magazine, Fall 2005, a publication of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law. Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity-Only Class Actions After Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. BY CHRISTIAN G. VERGONIS AND EDWIN L. FOUNTAIN OUR MONTHS AFTER THE to which CAFA is directed, the decision still has significant enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act of implications for whether class actions not covered by CAFA 2005 (CAFA) wrought a sea change in the juris- may be brought in, or removed to, federal court. dictional rules governing diversity-only class F actions, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an impor- The Jurisdictional Backdrop tant decision further modifying the scope of federal court To appreciate the changes that CAFA and Exxon Mobil have jurisdiction in diversity cases. Resolving a 15-year-old con- made to the landscape of diversity jurisdiction, it is helpful troversy that had sharply divided the lower courts, the Court to understand the legal setting in which these two develop- held in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.,1 that the ments arose. This backdrop included two well-settled rules supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, abro- concerning jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, gated the long-standing rule of Zahn v. International Paper both of which were based on interpretations of the diversity- Co.2 that, in a diversity-only class action—such as an indirect jurisdiction statute and, therefore, susceptible to revision by purchaser class action brought under state antitrust laws— Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of New York U.S
    Case 2:14-cv-07520-SJF-ARL Document 25 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID> FILED CLERK 12/10/2015 2:21 pm UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. DISTRICT COURT ----------------------------------------------------------X EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LONG ISLAND OFFICE Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 14-CV-7520 (SJF)(ARL) SHATURA SIMONEE, STERLING SIMONEE, THE ESTATE OF SAUNDRA SIMONEE, and OYSTER BAY FUNERAL HOME, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------X FEUERSTEIN, J. Plaintiff, Hartford Life Insurance Company (“Hartford” or “Plaintiff”), has moved to interplead three (3) potential beneficiaries with competing rights to the proceeds of a life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy and for attorneys’ fees. The motions are denied with leave to refile. I. BACKGROUND At the time of her death on September 27, 2013, Saundra Simonee (“Decedent”), a resident of New York, held a valid life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy (the “Policy”) underwritten by Hartford and valued at $43,750.00 (the “Policy Benefits”). [DE 1 at ¶ 4; DE 22-1 at 1-3]. Hartford does not dispute its obligation to pay the Policy Benefits. [DE 22-1 at 1]. Decedent’s daughter, Shatura Simonee (“Shatura”), is the sole named beneficiary on the Policy; Decedent’s son, Sterling Simonee (“Sterling”), is not named. Id. Decedent was unmarried at the time of her death. Id. at 3. Case 2:14-cv-07520-SJF-ARL Document 25 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID> On October 16, 2013, Shatura asserted a claim to the Policy Benefits.
    [Show full text]