Civ Pro Diversity Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
martinest1833
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 11:04 pm

Civ Pro Diversity Question

Postby martinest1833 » Mon May 08, 2017 11:10 pm

Consider a claim was brought (in AZ state court) against a corporation that is incorporated in DE, and has its headquarters in NY. The corporation has sufficient contacts for the AZ court to establish general jurisdiction.

If the corporation removed to federal court, could the plaintiff be successful on a motion to remand to state court?

I'm confused as to whether or not AZ having general jurisdiction over the corporation defeats the diversity jurisdiction. I know that corporate citizenship is its state of incorporation and its "nerve center," but if general jurisdiction is established in AZ can the case still go to federal court under 1332?

User avatar
cdotson2
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:06 am

Re: Civ Pro Diversity Question

Postby cdotson2 » Tue May 09, 2017 12:31 am

martinest1833 wrote:Consider a claim was brought (in AZ state court) against a corporation that is incorporated in DE, and has its headquarters in NY. The corporation has sufficient contacts for the AZ court to establish general jurisdiction.

If the corporation removed to federal court, could the plaintiff be successful on a motion to remand to state court?

I'm confused as to whether or not AZ having general jurisdiction over the corporation defeats the diversity jurisdiction. I know that corporate citizenship is its state of incorporation and its "nerve center," but if general jurisdiction is established in AZ can the case still go to federal court under 1332?


State and federal courts can have overlapping jurisdiction this is not a bar to removal.

User avatar
mjb447
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Civ Pro Diversity Question

Postby mjb447 » Tue May 09, 2017 1:04 am

Diversity (and removal based on it) are matters of SMJ, i.e. does federal court have power to adjudicate this type of case? Minimum contacts is a PJ principle that you have to think about regardless of where suit is brought (can court's decision bind parties - is it fair/foreseeable based on their activities). Presence of PJ in state court has no direct effect on presence of SMJ in fed ct. I may not be understanding you though.

martinest1833
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Civ Pro Diversity Question

Postby martinest1833 » Tue May 09, 2017 2:04 am

cdotson2 wrote:
martinest1833 wrote:Consider a claim was brought (in AZ state court) against a corporation that is incorporated in DE, and has its headquarters in NY. The corporation has sufficient contacts for the AZ court to establish general jurisdiction.

If the corporation removed to federal court, could the plaintiff be successful on a motion to remand to state court?

I'm confused as to whether or not AZ having general jurisdiction over the corporation defeats the diversity jurisdiction. I know that corporate citizenship is its state of incorporation and its "nerve center," but if general jurisdiction is established in AZ can the case still go to federal court under 1332?


State and federal courts can have overlapping jurisdiction this is not a bar to removal.


Right, but here's where I'm really fucked up... what about 1391(c) Residency For Purpose of Venue, (2):
"an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question"

Does this only deal with residency for purposes of venue regarding the district court in which the action should be brought, or does it deal with residency in the broader sense that could defeat diversity jurisdiction?

So corp is incorporated in DE, nerve center in NY, and is a resident in AZ pursuant to 1391. The plaintiff is from AZ. Does 1391 bar this claim from going to federal court under 1332(b)? (assuming there is no federal question)

cavalier1138
Posts: 3769
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Civ Pro Diversity Question

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue May 09, 2017 6:47 am

martinest1833 wrote:Right, but here's where I'm really fucked up... what about 1391(c) Residency For Purpose of Venue, (2):
"an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question"

Does this only deal with residency for purposes of venue regarding the district court in which the action should be brought, or does it deal with residency in the broader sense that could defeat diversity jurisdiction?

So corp is incorporated in DE, nerve center in NY, and is a resident in AZ pursuant to 1391. The plaintiff is from AZ. Does 1391 bar this claim from going to federal court under 1332(b)? (assuming there is no federal question)


Venue is a separate issue. Removal isn't related to venue; it's a jurisdictional question. Don't try to answer them at the same time, or you'll get messed up. Removal/remand is literally switching court systems. Transferring venue is just shifting to a new location within the same system.

If the amount in controversy is >$75k and no Ps are from the same state as any Ds, there is diversity jurisdiction. For diversity purposes, a corporation can be a citizen of two states: its place of incorporation and its "nerve center". "Residence" for purposes of venue is irrelevant to determining citizenship. So if your plaintiff is unambiguously a citizen of AZ and your corporation is a citizen of NY or DE, then as long as amount-in-controversy requirements are met, there's diversity jurisdiction.

User avatar
mjb447
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Civ Pro Diversity Question

Postby mjb447 » Tue May 09, 2017 8:00 am

The answer is in the text of the statute (and the short name you gave it) - this provision is for purposes of determining venue only.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests