Christopher Ramos

Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Hypo

Q1

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

Facts
1. 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
there is no conclusive answer. Either way, any change in the favorability of
Christopher Ramos

substantive law is not dispositive.

a. Remedy difference
b. 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 3
1. why attach prop? Diff analysis for each…
a. quasi in rem (personal juris)
b. pre judgment security
c. 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 interest
b. Erroneous deprivation
c. Additional safeguards
i. Question on ratio of bond:seizure
d. gov/public interest
e. this can be waived and has to be raised in the answer

Malpractice

Question 1
Diversity  citizenship of the represented is what matters
Watch-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 2
Mottley 
Holmes test? Is there a private right of action or is it just capping damages?
Christopher Ramos

 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 4
Waiver by cert mail
e) allows you to use state rules
4(g) incompetence ish…