racer72 said:
You are not allowed to sue individuals in Federal court. And even if you could, you would still have to do it in the state that the respondant lives. Federal courts only hear cases that involve federal laws and statutes.
My response:
I don't quite understand your conclusion, Racer. I see nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that mandates only corporations or other business entities are the only types of entities or "persons" that can avail themselves of the Federal Court System - - unless, of course, "minumum contacts" with the Plaintiff's State has been satisfied, and then in such a case the Plaintiff's action "can" be filed in the State court - - but then, you'd have a "choice of courts".
If your conclusion were the case, then two people in privity of contract (assuming diversity of citizenship, minimum amount in controversy exists, and the other Federal Jurisdiction requirements were satisfied), would have no recourse or remedy. You can't force a "foreign" State resident to submit to the jurisdiction of the Plaintiff's home "State court" - - ergo, Federal court is the answer to the jurisdiction dilemma.
The federal court sits as a tribunal of limited jurisdiction defined by the United States Constitution and Congress. Generally, the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving diversity of citizenship, a "federal question," or disputes where the federal government is a party. [See US Const Art III; 28 USC §§1330 et seq.]
A plaintiff in federal court must affirmatively plead a basis for jurisdiction in his or her complaint, though pleading jurisdiction requires only a "short and plain statement" of the appropriate basis for jurisdiction. [FRCP 8(a)]
A case may be removed to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship when it is between: (1) citizens of different states; (2) citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different states, with citizens or subjects of a foreign state as additional parties; or (4) a foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a state or different states. [28 USC §§1332(a), 1441(a)] Removal on diversity grounds is further limited to cases in which none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. [28 USC §1441(b)]
Removal of a case on the ground of diversity of citizenship is subject to the further requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest. [28 USCA §§1332(a), 1441(a)]
This burden is satisfied as to the amount in controversy if the plaintiff alleges an amount greater than the minimum jurisdictional requirement ($75,000) [Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1996) 102 F.3d 398; Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc. (9th Cir. 1986) 802 F.2d 362.] Where the amount in controversy is in dispute, and where it is unclear from the plaintiff’s complaint whether the plaintiff is seeking more than the minimum jurisdictional amount in damages, the defendant seeking to remove bears the burden of showing it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount. [See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1996) 102 F.3d 398]
In a situation where the plaintiff’s state court complaint claims damages less than the minimum jurisdictional amount and the defendant removes the matter to federal court, the defendant must prove "to a legal certainty" that the plaintiff will recover at least the minimum jurisdictional amount if successful. However, where the complaint is silent as to the amount of damages being sought, the removing defendant need only establish by a "preponderance of evidence" that the plaintiff’s claim exceeds the jurisdictional amount. [Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1996) 102 F.3d 398]
Furthermore, if the complaint is silent or unclear as to the amount in controversy, a stipulation by the plaintiff’s attorney that the claim exceeds the minimum jurisdiction is sufficient. [See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1997) 116 F.3d 373.] However, the defendant cannot rely on a plaintiff’s settlement demands to establish the minimum jurisdiction requirements, since such demands may be viewed as "puffing" and not evidence of the amount in controversy. [Gwyn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (M.D.N.C. 1996) 955 F.Supp. 44.]
Generally, the plaintiff, through the allegations in the complaint, can control whether an action will be removable on diversity grounds. For example, removal is precluded when the plaintiff in good faith joins a non-diverse party. The existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and does not depend on whether they have also been served. [Pullman Co. v. Jenkins (1939) 305 U.S. 534, 59 S.Ct. 347, 83 L.Ed. 334; Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek (9th Cir. 1969) 412 F.2d 1174.]
So, also, the amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith controls; if on the face of the complaint it is obvious that the suit does not involve the jurisdictionally necessary amount, removal is not proper. [St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co. (1938) 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845.]
There are certain types of cases that would be removable under the general principles governing removal to federal court, but that have been expressly made nonremovable by statute. These types of cases include:
Federal Employers’ Liability Act claims filed in state court against a railroad or its receiver or trustees [28 USC §1445(a)];
Jones Act actions brought in state court [Johnson v. Odeco Oil and Gas Co. (5th Cir. 1989) 864 F.2d 40 (also holding that plaintiff’s actions in federal court after removal constituted a waiver of the right to remand); Sawyer v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc. (S.D. Ill. 1982) 577 F.Supp. 37 (holding that 28 USC §1445(a) prohibition applies, by virtue of 46 USC Appx §688(a))];
Actions commenced in state courts against a common carrier or its receiver or trustees to recover damages for delay, loss, or injury of shipments, unless the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs [28 USC §1445(b)];
Civil actions in state courts arising under that state’s workers’ compensation law [28 USC §1445(c)];
Actions brought in state court under the Securities Act of 1933 [15 USC §77v(a)].
Good luck to you,
IAAL
[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 03-30-2001 at 10:07 AM]
)