CIV PRO/ CONFLICTS ESSAYS
THEMIS 313 –
Plaintiff, a domiciliary of State X, was severely injured in a car accident in State X. Tortfeasor, the
uninsured owner and driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, was also a citizen of State
X. Before any litigation regarding the accident began, Tortfeasor died of a heart attack.
Following Tortfeasor’s death, Plaintiff commenced an action against Executor, the legal
representative of Tortfeasor’s estate. Executor is a citizen of State Y. Plaintiff sued Executor in the
federal district court of State Y. The complaint, which alleged that Tortfeasor’s negligence caused
the accident and Plaintiff’s injuries, sought damages in excess of $500,000.
Executor answered the complaint, denying the allegations of negligence but admitting the court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. A year later, however, after extensive discovery, Executor moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After the submission of briefs and
oral argument on the jurisdictional issue, the federal court denied Executor’s motion to dismiss,
ruling that “jurisdiction exists and, in any event, the motion was untimely.” A trial was held, and
the jury rendered a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor for $80,000.
The federal court entered judgment on the verdict. No appeal was taken.
When Executor declined to pay the judgment, Plaintiff commenced suit in a state court in State X
to enforce the federal judgment. In the state suit, Executor challenged the validity of the judgment,
claiming that the federal district court of State Y lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
1. Did the federal district court of State Y err in denying Executor’s motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction? Explain.
2. Should the state court in State X enforce the federal judgment? Explain.
Sample Answer
1. The issue is whether the federal district court in State Y erred in denying Executor’s
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (35-55%)
Under federal law, a U.S. District Court has diversity jurisdiction over a matter if (i) no plaintiff is
a citizen of the same state as any defendant and (ii) the amount in controversy in the case exceeds
$75,000 based on a good-faith assertion. In general, an individual who is a named party in a suit
is a citizen of the state in which the individual is domiciled—i.e., the state in which the individual
is present and intends to reside for an indefinite period. However, a legal representative of a
decedent's estate will be deemed a citizen of the same state as the decedent—not the state where
the legal representative is domiciled. Further, the defense of lack of subject matter subject matter
jurisdiction may be raised at any time throughout litigation and even on appeal, as it is not
waivable.
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages in excess of $500,000, clearly exceeding the amountin-controversy threshold. Nothing in the facts suggests that Plaintiff’s claim was made in bad
faith. The parties, though, are not diverse from each other. Although Executor is a citizen of State
Y, Executor is deemed to be a citizen of the same state as the decedent, Tortfeasor. Plaintiff is also
a domiciliary of State X. Thus, Plaintiff and Tortfeasor were both citizens of State X and were
therefore not diverse from each other.
Although the motion to dismiss was raised a year after Executor answered the complaint and
admitted jurisdiction, the defense of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and may properly
be raised at any time. The court was therefore obligated to consider the merits of Executor's motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. And because the parties lacked complete
diversity, the court erred by denying Executor's motion.
2. The issue is whether the state court in State X must enforce the federal judgment. (5060%)
A party who obtains a judgment in one state may petition a court in another state to enforce the
judgment. Under the U.S. Constitution, state courts are required to give full faith and credit to
valid judgments issued by state courts in other states. State courts are likewise required to honor
valid judgments issued by federal courts as those judgments would be treated by other federal
courts. This means that issues decided in one court cannot be relitigated in another court, and the
court in the state in which enforcement is sought must honor the judgment of the federal
court. However, a party against whom enforcement of a judgment is sought may collaterally
challenge the original judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction if that jurisdictional
issue was not litigated in the original action.
Here, Executor raised lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district court action and the
issue was heard and decided by the court. Even though, as explained above, the federal court’s
decision on the issue was in error, no appeal was taken, so the court’s judgment became final. If
Executor had wanted to challenge the district court's determination on subject matter jurisdiction,
then Executor should have filed an appeal. Because this jurisdictional issue was litigated in the
State Y federal court, it cannot be collaterally challenged, and Full Faith and Credit is
applicable. Therefore, the state court in State X must enforce the federal judgment.
MY ANSWER *** AHHH
1. The Federal District Court Did Not Err in denying Executor’s motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction-that is, they can hear only certain types of
cases. Federal courts can hear cases involving federal question if the federal question appears
on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. The federal question cannot appear in the
answer. Further, the plaintiff cannot merely anticipate a federal defense in its complaint.
Here, there is no federal question because the cause of action is negligence, which is a state
court claim. Therefore, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction.
A federal court may also have diversity jurisdiction over a case if (1) there is complete diversity
of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy is over
$75,000. In order to determine whether complete diversity exists, a court must determine the
domicile of an individual or corporation. A person is domiciled “where it is her permanent home,
a place where the person intends to remain indefinitely, and the place to which the person intends
to return when temporarily absent.”
Here, Plaintiff is domiciled in State X because the facts state plaintiff is a domiciliary of State X.
Executor is domiciled in State Y at the time the lawsuit was filed. The claim is in excess of
$500,000, so the amount in controversy is met. Because Plaintiff is domiciled in State X, and
because Executor is domiciled in State Y, and because the amount in controversy is met, the federal
court has complete diversity over the case. Therefore, the Federal District Court did not err in
denying Executor’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The State Court in State X Should Enforce the Federal Judgment of State Y.
Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, a state must recognize final judgments of
other states so long as the judgment is on the merits and the other state had jurisdiction.
Here, State Y had diversity jurisdiction over the case. Also, the case went to trial, and the jury
rendered a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor for $80,000, proving that the case was litigated on the merits.
Because State Y had diversity jurisdiction over the case, and because the case was litigated on the
merits, State X should enforce the Federal Judgment of State Y under the Full Faith and Credit
Clause of the Constitution.
A federal district court sitting in diversity must apply the choice of law approach of the state in
which it sits.