|
In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court in the federal judiciary has the power to hear a civil case where the persons that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are citizens of different states or non-U.S. citizens. (Corporations, as legal persons, may also be included.) Diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction (jurisdiction over issues arising under federal law) constitute the two primary categories of subject matter jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts. The United States Constitution, in Article III, § 2, gives the Congress the power to permit federal courts to hear diversity cases through legislation authorizing such jurisdiction. The provision was included because the Framers of the Constitution were concerned that when a case is filed in one state, and it involves parties from that state and another state, the state court might be biased toward the party from that state.〔''Guaranty Trust Co. v. York'', . In this decision, Justice Felix Frankfurter explained: "Diversity jurisdiction is founded on assurance to non-resident litigants of courts free from susceptibility to potential local bias. The Framers of the Constitution . . . entertained 'apprehensions' lest distant suitors be subjected to local bias in State courts, or, at least, viewed with 'indulgence the possible fears and apprehensions' of such suitors. () And so Congress afforded out-of-State litigants another tribunal, not another body of law."〕 Congress first exercised that power and granted federal trial circuit courts diversity jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Diversity jurisdiction is currently codified at . In 1969, the American Law Institute explained in a 587-page analysis of the subject that diversity is the "most controversial" type of federal jurisdiction, because it "lays bare fundamental issues regarding the nature and operation of our federal union." ==Diversity of parties== Mostly, in order for diversity jurisdiction to apply, complete diversity is required, where none of the plaintiffs can be from the same state as any of the defendants.〔''Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche'', .〕 A corporation is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated ''and'' the state in which its principal place of business is located.〔''Danjaq, S.A. v. Pathe Comm'ns Corp.'', 979 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1992).〕 A partnership or limited liability company is considered to have the citizenship of all of its constituent partners/members.〔''Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP'', 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006).〕 Thus, an LLC or partnership with one member or partner sharing citizenship with an opposing party will destroy diversity of jurisdiction. Cities and towns (incorporated municipalities) are also treated as citizens of the states in which they are located, but states themselves are not considered citizens for the purpose of diversity. U.S. citizens are citizens of the state in which they are domiciled, which is the last state in which they resided and had an intent to remain.〔''Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards'', .〕 Though an alien (foreign national) who has been granted the status of permanent resident status used to be treated as a citizen of the state where the alien is domiciled, recent law has eliminated this language from the code and added language specifically denying diversity jurisdiction in a claim between a citizen of a state and an alien permanent resident.〔http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt10/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt10.pdf〕 A national bank chartered under the National Bank Act is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is "located."〔28 U.S.C. § 1348.〕 In 2006, the Supreme Court rejected an approach that would have interpreted the term "located" to mean that a national bank is a citizen of every state in which it maintains a branch.〔''Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt'', 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006).〕 The Supreme Court concluded that “a national bank . . . is a citizen of the State in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located.”〔''Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt'', 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006).〕 The Supreme Court, however, left open the possibility that a national bank may ''also'' be a citizen of the state in which it has its principal place of business, thus putting it on an equal footing with a state-formed corporation.〔''Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt'', 546 U.S. 303, 315 n.8, 317 n.9 (2006).〕 This remains an open question, with some lower courts holding that a national bank is a citizen of ''only'' the state in which its main office is located, and others holding that a national bank is ''also'' a citizen of the state in which it has its principal place of business.〔''Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB'', 747 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing cases on each side of circuit split and joining majority rule that national bank is only citizen of state in which main office is located).〕 The diversity jurisdiction statute also allows federal courts to hear cases in which: *Citizens of a U.S. state are parties on one side of the case, with nonresident alien(s) as adverse parties; *Complete diversity exists as to the U.S. parties, and nonresident aliens are additional parties; *A foreign state (i.e. country) is the plaintiff, and the defendants are citizens of one or more U.S. states; or *Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a class action can usually be brought in a federal court when there is just ''minimal diversity'', such that ''any'' plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from ''any'' defendant. Class actions that do not meet the requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act must have complete diversity between class representatives (those named in the lawsuit) and the defendants. A U.S. citizen who is domiciled outside the U.S. is not considered to be a citizen of any U.S. state, and cannot be considered an alien. The presence of such a person as a party completely destroys diversity jurisdiction, except for a class action or mass action in which minimal diversity exists with respect to other parties in the case. If the case requires the presence of a party who is from the same state as an opposing party, or a party who is a U.S. citizen domiciled outside the country, the case must be dismissed, the absent party being deemed "indispensable". The determination of whether a party is indispensable is made by the court following the guidelines set forth in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Diversity jurisdiction」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|