Civil Procedure Analysis

Pam took an indefinite leave of absence from her job, sublet her apartment in State A, and went to care for her elderly mother in State B. Approximately six months later, while Pam was walking to her car in the parking lot of Don’s Market in State B, Rita, a resident of State C, struck Pam with her car. In Rita’s car were three friends from State C who were traveling through State B with Rita. The friends told the police officer called to the scene of the accident that Pam was reading a magazine as she walked across the parking lot and was therefore not watching where she was going.

Pam told the police officer that she had just walked out from behind a large concrete column in the parking lot when Rita’s car struck her. Pam sued Rita and Don’s Market in federal court in State B. Pam’s complaint sought $60,000 in damages against each defendant. It also asked the court for an injunction ordering Don’s Market to tear down the concrete column in the parking lot. Don’s Market moved to dismiss Pam’s complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion.

Rita then moved for a change of venue of the action to federal court in State C on the grounds that she is a citizen of State C and that it would be a hardship for her and her witnesses to travel to State B for trial. The court denied Rita’s motion for change of venue. Rita then filed a notice of appeal of the court’s denial of her venue motion. The appellate court dismissed Rita’s appeal. 1. Was the trial court correct in denying the motion of Don’s Market to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction? Discuss. 2.

Was the trial court correct in denying Rita’s motion for change of venue? Discuss. 3. Was the appellate court correct in dismissing Rita’s appeal? Discuss. ? PAM v. RITA and DON’S MARKET 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction (jxd) Subject matter jurisdiction requires 1) diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy over $75,000, or 2) federal question. In contrast, in California, limited civil cases are actions in which the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less, and unlimited civil cases are civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.

Small claims court exercises jurisdiction over cases in which the amount of controversy is less than $7,500 for cases brought by an individual. Diversity Diversity requires that every plaintiff must be of diverse citizenship from every defendant. An amount in controversy requires that a good faith allegation of the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Diverse Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship refers to a person’s domicile, which is determined by: (1) physical presence in the state; with (2) intent to permanently reside there. Rita

Here Rita’s citizenship is State C because there is presence and intent, since she is a resident of State C. Thus, this element is met. Don’s Market (DM) Citizenship of a Corporation For the purpose of diversity, corporations have dual citizenship. They are citizens of (1) the place of incorporation; and (2) their principal place of business. Here, DM operates its principal place of business in State B because there is no evidence that it is a nationwide grocery store and its state of incorporation is unknown. Thus, DM is a citizen of State B and Rita is a citizen of State C.

In this case, Pam must not be a citizen of either of those states because it will destroy diversity between these parties. Pam’s Citizenship Physical Presence Here, Pam’s physical presence at the time of the accident was in State B because she was living in State B and taking care of her mother. Thus, this element is met. Intent to Reside Here, Pam does not have intent to permanently reside in State B because she only subleased her apartment in State A as opposed to terminating her lease or assigning the lease. Next, Pam’s residence in State B is temporary because she is taking care of her mother and her mother will most likely get better.

Next, Pam did not quit her job in State A because she only took a leave of absence to care for her mother in State B. Thus, this element is not met. Thus, Pam’s citizenship will not be State B because there is strong evidence that she intends to return to State A. Thus, this claim is met. . Amount in Controversy An amount in controversy requires that a good faith allegation of the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 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. Aggregation Aggregation requires a plaintiff to aggregate all claims against a single defendant to overcome the over $75,000 requirement. Aggregation by one party against several defendants will succeed only where the defendants are jointly liable to the plaintiff. Here, Pam’s claims should be aggregated because a combined amount would equal $120,000 which exceeds the amount of controversy requirements.

Next, Pam’s claims should be aggregated because is suing both Rita and DM for individual negligence in the same accident. Thus, this claim is met. Value of Equitable Relief If a plaintiff is seeking equitable relief (i. e. injunction) as opposed to monetary damages, courts will look to (value of the harm suffered by plaintiff; or (2) cost of compliance with the order for equitable relief. Here, Pam is seeking an injunction against DM because a court order would enforce the removal of the column in the parking lot. In this case, even though there has been no determination of how much the cost of compliance would be for DM.

Here, if the court finds a total for the benefit or cost of compliance to be in excess of $15,000, thus the new amount against DM may exceed $75,000 and this would satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Thus, this claim may succeed. Federal question Federal question requires that district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A federal question cannot be based solely on defenses based on federal law or complaints made in anticipation of a defense.

Here, there is no federal question because Pam is suing Rita for personal injuries stemming from a car accident. Thus, federal question jurisdiction fails. Thus, this claim fails. Thus, there is SMJ between these parties. 2. Venue Venue requires that jurisdiction is proper in a judicial district in which: 1) any defendant reside if all defendants reside in the same state; 2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or where a substantial part of the property is located. ) If 1) and 2) are not met, then jurisdiction is proper in a district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. Here, all defendants do no reside in the same state because Rita’s citizenship is State C and DM’s citizenship is State B. Next, a substantial part of the events occurred in State B because the accident took place in DM’s parking lot in State B. In this case, both elements are not met. Thus, this claim is not met. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)

Personal jurisdiction requires: 1) domicile, 2) physical presence, or 3) explicit consent or special appearance to contest jurisdiction without consent. Here, as discussed above, Rita’s PJ is State C because she resides in State C. Next, as discussed above, DM’s PJ is State B because DM’s principal place of business is State B. In this case, jurisdiction would be proper in either State B or C because jurisdiction is proper in a district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. Thus, venue may be in either state. Transfer of Venue

Transferring venue requires that a court will transfer to another district in the federal court if 1) it could have originally been brought there, 2) the interest of justice, and 3) the convenience of the parties require it. Here, Rita’s change of venue to State C should be denied because the accident occurred in State B. Next, the case could not have originally been brought there because the claim between these parties did not arise in State C. Thus, this element is not met. Here, the interest of justice will not be met because changing venue to State C satisfies justice only to Rita and the witnesses in her car.

Thus, this element is not met. Convenience Here, changing venue to State C is convenient to Rita and all her witnesses reside because they all reside in State C. Next, it would be convenient to Rita and her witnesses because they would not have to travel from State C to State B. Next, it is convenient to Rita because her witnesses are able to provide a defense in Rita’s case, since Pam may be contributory negligent during the accident. In this case, Pam may be contributory negligent because she was not watching where she was walking in the parking lot, since she was reading a magazine witnessed by Rita’s witnesses.

Here, changing venue to State C is not convenient to either Pam or DM because the accident occurred in State B. Next, police reports and the police testimony are located in State B because it is property of State B’s police department. Next, DM is located in State B because it appears to be their only place of business. Next, it is not convenient to Pam to change venues to State C because she is taking care of her sick mother. In this case, Pam had to leave work, sublet her apartment because she had to move in with her mother in State B from State A, her home.

Thus, this claim is not met. The court was correct in denying Rita’s motion. 3. Rita’s Appeal Final Judgment Rule (FJR) FJR prohibits appeals from trial court cases that lack an ultimate decision on the merits of the entire case. Notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment. Here, Rita’s appeal was correctly denied because there has not been an ultimate decision on the merits of the entire case. In this case, there has not been a final judgment. Thus, this claim is not met. Interlocutory Appeal as of Right

Interlocutory appeal as of right require an appeal of non-final judgment in a variety of circumstances, including review of injunction motions (grant or deny), motions to appoint receivers (grant or deny), orders affecting possession of property (attachments), patent infringement matters in which accounting is the only item remaining for the trial court. . Here, the appellate court was correct in dismissing Rita’s appeal because there had not been a final judgment on the merits. Even if the appeal had been proper, it would have been denied since venue was proper. Thus, this claim is not met.