Answer: (from end and why) Under US Cont, Congress has power to create courts/define limits

of jdx. Supreme Ct has held that so long as limits are placed within boundaries of Const and not
beyond boundaries, they are const. As such, Congress ahs used power to limit ability of fed cts to
hear cases by limiting them their subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ). SMJ: For P to file suit in Fd.
Ct or D to remove case from state to Fd. Ct, case must follow under following: 1) Diversity (28
USC 1332) or 2) Fed Question (28 USC 1331). Removal to Ct is only appropriate if there would
have been SMJ had P filed here initially, rather than in state Ct. CITIZENSHIP: district Ct shall
have original jdx. of all civil actions where amount/contro exceeds sum or value $75K, exclusive
of interests and costs and is btwn: 1) citizens of different states, or 2) citizens of a State and
citizens or subjects of a foreign state. When referring to citizens of different states, citizenship is
defined as: domicile a persons place of true, fixed and permanent home and principal est, and
to which he has intention of returning whenever he is absent from. Mere residence in a state is
not sufficient. Evidence of citizenship includes: current residence, location of person or real
property or place of employment. (FACTS). CHANGE CITIZENSHIP, Party must: 1) take up
residence in different domicile with 2) intention to remain there. In order for div/citiz, parties
must be completely diverse from one another. Complete diversity means all Ps must be from
different states as all Ds. CORP: If a party is corporation, citizenship determined by which state
it is incorporated and of state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business. This is
based on nerve center, being headquarters or decision-making authority and overall control of the
corporation. Citizenship also determined by muscle centerwhere activity takes place. Total
activity is combination of both. (FACTS - Here, principal place of business; OR Since principle
place of business is not given, the nerve center text can be used, based on where business
activities are located. Based on the factsThus, there is/is not diversity citizenship between two
parties. ALIENAGE If one party is citizen of foreign state, alienage jdx. satisfied, except when
there is action between citizens of a State and a citizen of a State or subjects of foreign state who
are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in U.S. and are domiciled in same State. Foreign
nationals will always be diverse from U.S. citizens, but Fd. Cts do not have diversity jdx. over a
matter with only foreign nationals on both sides. Here, (LOOK at scenarios) there is still div/citiz
because. Based on facts, there is no div/citiz becauseThus, there is/is not div/citiz. AMOUNT
CONTRO While there is div/citiz, existence the minimum amount/contro bears further inquiry.
Mentioned above, amount/contro exceeds sum or value of $75K, exclusive of interest and costs.
When determining amount/contro, interest and costs may not be included, but attorneys fees and
punitive damages may be. Additionally, use Ps allegation of amount as long as it is in good faith
and cant be determined as matter of legal certainty that it is not more than $75K. Here, (amounts
added) satisfy amount/contro because. Thus, there is SMJ because amount/contro and div/citiz
are both satisfied. If AGGREGATION is a factor, following rules apply: 1)One P may aggregate
claims against one D to meet amount/contro, even if those claims are unrelated to one another, 2)
Multiple Ps may not aggregate claims against one D to reach amount/contro, 3) One P may not
aggregate claims against multiple Ds to reach amount/contro, 4) Ds counterclaim may not be
added to Ps claim to reach amount/contro. Multiple parties suing in same lawsuit or multiple
claims, aggregation rules apply. The rule states that one P may not aggregate against multiple Ds
to reach amount/contro unless Ds are jointly liable. Here, parties can/cant be aggregated
because. Some jdx.s view amount/contro from Ps perspective and ask what injunction, if
granted, would be worth to P. If over $75K, amount/contro met. Other jdx.s view amount/contro
from Ds perspective and ask what injunction, if granted, would cost D. If over $75K,
amount/contro met. Other jdx.s view amount/contro from both perspectives. If either value to P

or cost to D is over $75K, amount/contro met. Thus, amount/contro is satisfied. Ct has SMJ over
case because div/citiz and amount/contro are satisfied. Still, Fd. Question jdx. should be
addressed. FQJ: Fd. Cts have SMJ over all cases arising under the Constitution, Laws or Treaties
of the United States. (28 USC 1331) When addressing FQJ, it is not affected by amount/contro.
FQ must be evident from Ps statement of COA in a well-pleaded complaint, not as an
anticipated defense by the D, Ds answer, or counter claims (Mottley). Based on facts, FQ is/is
not in a well-pleaded complaint. FQJ is satisfied by a Fd. COA or a state COA that satisfies
Grable. FQJ might not exist, despite federally created COA, when resolution of the underlying
claim depends largely if not wholly on questions of non Fd. law. (Shoshone). Under Grable, for
question raised to be considered an essential Fd. element, it must be raised, actually disputed
and substantial, without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of Fd. and state
judicial responsibilities. We can ask: 1) Is there an essential Fd. ingredient embedded in an
otherwise nonFd. claim? 2) Is the Fd. ingredient actually disputed in the context of the case? 3)
Is the Fd. ingredient important in the sense that it is particularly appropriate for resolution in a
Fd. Ct? (Fd. interest?) 4) Would treating the claim as "arising under" upset the congressionally
mandated allocation of jdx. between state and Fd. Cts? Here, the essential Fd. element is satisfied
because. Thus, there is Fd. question jdx.. SUPP Supp jdx. is invoked when a case has a variety of
claims, some involving Fd. SMJ and some not. The modern rule is that district Cts shall have
supp jdx. over all claims that are so related to claims in action, within such original jdx. that they
form part of same case, that being claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts
(Gibbs) such that P would ordinarily be expected to try them all at one proceeding. Here, state
claims are and the Fd. claims are The state claims satisfy supp jdx. because they are
an issue ofTherefore, claims mentioned derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, as
interpreted by Gibbs because the state claim is transactioanlly related to the anchor claim.
However, Fd. Ct may refuse exercise supp jdx. if: 1) state claims are complex/novel, 2) state
claims predominate over Fd. claims, or 3)Fd. claim is dismissed, 4)exceptional circumstances. If
Fd. claim dismissed, state claim will generally be dismissed without prejudice by Fd. Ct. (28
USC 1367(c)). Here, state claim is/is not1, 2, 3 Therefore, there is likely supp jdx..
REMOVAL D has right to remove action filed in state Ct to Fd. Ct if action could have been
filed in Fd. Ct to begin with. Exception: If SMJ based on diversity, D may not remove if he is a
citizen of state in which the action was filed based on facts, case can/cannot be removed
because. Judge may decline to exercise supp jdx. if Ct has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jdx.. 28 USC 1367 is discretionary and Ct may chose whether to decline to
exercise supp jdx.. Under 28 USC 1367(d), statute of limitations is tolled while claim is pending
and for 30 days after it is dismissed (unless state law provides for longer tolling period). Under
28 USC 1441(b), a diversity case without naming Ds cannot be removed. Removal and remand
procedures, under 28 USC 1446, a D has 30 days from service of complaint to request
removal. If multiple Ds, all must join in request for removal. Well-pleaded complaint rule
applies here in that: basis of removal cannot be of a Fd. issue in answer, or counter-claim.
Here, D can remove case because A case cannot be removed more than one year after
commencement of action, unless Ct finds P had acted in bad faith. Facts, it is likely that case
can/cannot be removed because Therefore, because div/citiz and Fd. question jdx. are
satisfied, case can be removed from state to Fd. Ct and Fd. Ct has SMJ over case.