Christopher Ramos

Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Hypo

Q 1 If the human rights violation claimed under the Alien Tort Claims Act is a violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the U.S., then there would be independent federal jurisdiction. The statute establishes original jurisdiction for a private right of action so there is little doubt that such a human rights claim arises under a federal law as required by USC 1331. For this claim there is no need to investigate the amount in controversy or diversity since the federal question is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The three state claims would not satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction under USC 1332. Pandella, as a domicile of New Jersey would be considered a citizen of the State while Dibala is a foreign citizen and therefore diversity of citizenship is established. However, unless the “damages in excess of $10,000” claimed amount to more than $75,000, there is want of minimum amount in controversy. at this point it moves to D to challenge.

might want to throw out a point about amending the complaint to meet 75k+

That said, the state claims can still see their day in federal court. If they and the human rights claim, that involves a federal question, stem from a common nucleus of fact. Gibbs. If so, the federal district court will, under 1367(a), have supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

It is important to note that supplemental jurisdiction may be rejected by the federal court even if the states claims meet the constitutionally minimum standard of forming the same case of controversy.

The court may reject the state claims based on one of several grounds. (1) They raise a novel or complex issue of state law. Pandella would certainly argue that there is nothing novel or complex about his state tort claims. On the other hand, Dibala could counter that the international dimension

(2) claim substantially predominates over the federal claim. (3) district court has dismissed claim over which it has original jurisdiction. (4) in exceptional circumstance there are other compelling reasons for rejecting jurisdiction.

QUESTION 2

Forum non

Facts1. change in substantive law. Unclear whether it would be more or less favorable

to Dibala. Given the dictatorship and split loyalty of the judiciary in DNA

Christopher Ramos

there is no conclusive answer. Either way, any change in the favorability of substantive law is not dispositive.

a. Remedy differenceb. Fair trial difference

2. Although district courts should typically give a fair amount of deference to the Ps choice of forum, much less deference is given when P is foreign, Reyno.

3. The court will also wrestle with the possible difficulties involved in the administration of this case in a US dist. Ct. There will a fair amount of difficulty trying the case in the US with regard to witnesses and evidence. The question will be whether this difficulty is burdensome enough to grant forum non.

4. Before passing forum non the court should also know that P has an alternative forum. Here that is not an easy question. P will not return to try the case in DNA since he is a poly refugee. This seems rather clear. Also, Dibala has not waived any possible statute of limiations that may reign over the case. But, Dibala did agree not to protest juris.

5. Forum non would most likely not be granted. 6. Balancing test in gilbert?

a. Public/private interest

Question 31. why attach prop? Diff analysis for each…

a. quasi in rem (personal juris)b. pre judgment securityc. post judgment security

2. this question is getting at notice and opportunity to be heard. 3. Talk through what is constitutional requirements

a. Nature of private interestb. Erroneous deprivationc. Additional safeguards

i. Question on ratio of bond:seizured. gov/public intereste. this can be waived and has to be raised in the answer

Malpractice

Question 1Diversity citizenship of the represented is what mattersWatch-out for dual citizens. Question of injunction worth? hard to quantify sentiment. Historical view was

from P’s view. As of late it has been from either viewpoint. Argue both --- look into why we have amountin controversy? Policy concern? Just a way to sort of break a tie.

Hertz nerve center test. Control everything, make all the decisions.

Question 2Mottley

Christopher Ramos

Holmes test? Is there a private right of action or is it just capping damages? almost analogous erie problem. smith problem? In smith fed jx existed because even though it was a state claim it was a more important issue for fed that only fed cts can really interpret moore. differences btw damages and equitable remedies… amount in controversy is both__> mottley/merrel-dow

Rule 4Waiver by cert maile) allows you to use state rules

4(g) incompetence ish…