Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Case Study

Here, Pam does not meet the required amount in controversy because she is suing each defendant for $60,000 in damages. Next, Pam’s injunctive relief does not meet the amount in controversy because there was no amount allocated to what Pam was seeking in injunctive relief. Thus, this element is not met.

“The idea that a corporation is a legal person with constitutional rights is, of course, a controversial one. Some commentators argue that it's bad policy. In my view, however, it is a well-settled principle of US constitutional law and justifiably so. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that Congress substituted the word ''person'' for the word ''citizen'' precisely so that the provisions so affected would protect not just natural persons but also legal persons, such as corporations, from oppressive legislation.”

Subject matter jurisdiction allows a court the authority to only hear case that are in regards to a specific topic. Although restrictive in its ability to hear cases based on the topic, subject matter jurisdiction can specialize in a specific case type. Courts such as tax, federal claims and bankruptcy are examples courts which have subject matter jurisdiction.

A federal court's power to hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two main types of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.

Issues: In what courts may Elle sue FDC? (What courts would have jurisdiction over this lawsuit)?

The subject matter jurisdiction is the courts authority to judge particular lawsuits in federal or state courts. As discussed in the textbook, “Subject-matter jurisdiction determines which court system may hear a particular case” (Kubasek, pg.44, 2009). Novelty One’s website states that all complaints must be settled with the state of Florida when filed against Funny Face or Novelty One. Therefore, the lawsuit against Novelty One will need to be filed with the state of Florida courts.

64: Original jurisdiction which means it can try all cases dealing with such subjects as:

Feedback: Questions of federal law and diversity between different states and citizens of different states are within the jurisdiction of Federal courts. State tort cases between citizens of the SAME state are restricted to state court.

Plaintiffs contend the forum selection clause limits them to Virginia state court, where a class action remedy would be unavailable to them; this, they contend, violates California public policy favoring consumer class actions and renders the forum selection clause unenforceable.” (Doe 1 v AOL LLC, 2009) The district court granted AOL’s motion and dismissed the action.

Procedural History: The federal court refused to hear the case because it is in question whether or not

*The concept of supplemental Jurisdiction grows in complexity once we recognize that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate lawsuits in which the party structure is more complex than the “A v. B” lawsuit.

Who gets what when it comes to jurisdiction, how do you tell if it’s a state matter or a federal matter? Whether state or federal there are strict jurisdictions that both state and federal has to follow. From subject and personal jurisdiction, to the three types of personal jurisdiction. Each court has set boundaries that govern their rights. Without these rights there would be no subject matter. No one would go to the appreciate courts or have the correct measures to even known which court they are supposed to go to. But weather federal or state jurisdiction is going to take part in each case.

Ms. Petrillo was so traumatized by her pastoral counselor’s conduct that she relocated to Madison, Wisconsin, where she established a new domicile and from where she has no intent to depart in any definite measure of time. The Court should deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Petrillo’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Ms. Petrillo has her domicile in Wisconsin and each defendant has its domicile in Alabama. When there is complete diversity among the parties, a federal court may hear their case. 28 U.S.C.A § 1332(a) (West 2011). “Diversity” refers to the parties’ domiciles; if opposing parties are domiciled in different states, there is complete diversity among the parties. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th

The American constitution plays a crucial role in delegating of laws in the country and it governs all citizens. On the other hand, a state’s constitution serves a similar purpose but only under the state’s jurisdiction. This constitution is the basis for other state laws including those of other sections of the state government. This implies that all the laws outlined by this constitution affect its organization, operations and maintenance. Actions carried out outside the constitutional boundaries are considered to be illegal. As such, the Arizona constitution has endeavored to effectively guide

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.