rocon7383 wrote:civ pro question.
P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.
Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?
The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?
A corporation is a citizen of where they are incorporated (can only be 1 place) and their principal place of business (can only be 1 place). Even Wal-Mart, which has significant business in every state still only has 1 principal place of business. Diversity is determined based on citizenship at the time of the suit. So it looks like this:
P (FL) v. D (DE & MA)
Complete diversity? No P has the same citizenship as any D, so yes complete diversity. If the amount in controversy requirement is met, there will be diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.
Minimum contacts analysis is only used for personal jurisdiction. Here it sounds like D is a candidate for general jurisdiction, since they appear to have both systemic and continuous contacts there, but it is a pretty high bar to raise so you should be careful in your analysis.