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 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.
Citizenship refers to a person’s domicile, which is determined by: (1) physical presence in the state; with (2) intent to permanently reside there.
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.
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...