What is diversity of citizenship?
Diversity citizenship is a reference to the authority of the federal courts under Art. III, § 2, of the U.S Constitution, which covers cases between citizens from different states or citizen of a state and an alien. All citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to present their case in federal court as stipulated by Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This establishment encompasses the federal judicial supremacies to solve issues between citizens from different governments as well as states involving disputes of over $10,000. The logic behind act is to reduce the number of minor cases that disrupt federal court calendars. As explained by Isin, diversity of citizenship is one of the elements of American law that gives the federal district court the power to implement its authority of diversity jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit (15). In Kelley Mala vs. Crown Bay Marina, the plaintiff indicated that the parties were diverse, thus requested a jury trial. On the other hand, Crown Bay refuted the diversity of the parties because they were both citizens of the Virgin Islands. Being a property owner or being bodily present within a state does not inevitably constitute to being its citizen. However, it means that an individual has a residence in the locality, and it is his or her current home. Corporations are referred to as citizens of the state in which they are developed or incorporated and the localities where they put their headquarters. However, cases involving businesses that qualify for citizenship in two places in federal court are complex considering that legally, they are partly alien.
How does the diversity of citizenship affect a lawsuit?
Before federal district court gives its ruling, it has to establish the citizenship of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant as of the time the lawsuit is commenced. As explained by Clarkson, Roger, and Frank, a party’s domicile at the time a lawsuit is presented as a pillar for the Cause of Action and any alteration of domicile during the progression of events does not influence the court’s authority (72). The rule allows an individual to change his or her home just before serving legal papers. In Kelley Mala vs. Crown Bay Marina, by presenting their domicile, the defendant reduced the powers of the advisory jury, which awarded 460,000 dollars to the plaintiff to compensate for the pain and suffering caused as well as the damaged boat.
What did the Court Decide on the case study?
The Seventh Amendment of the American constitution creates a precedence that allows the civic jury to determine verdicts in federal courts. The right by trial ought to be preserved in Suit at common law; nonetheless, admiralty cases such as Kelley Mala vs. Crown Bay Marina are not ‘Suit at common Law”. Subsequently, the district court did not have jury rights. Additionally, as indicated by the defendant, diversity in terms of the court’s jurisdiction was lacking. The courts decided that under the requirements of 60 (b)(3) the plaintiff did not show clearly that Crown Bay was misrepresented in the case. While the court noted some factual errors in the decision of the District court’s ruling, it declined to overturn its ruling because the plaintiff was unable to present enough evidence to prove Crown Bay was a resident of Florida
Clarkson, Kenneth W., Roger LeRoy Miller, and Frank B. Cross. Business Law: Texts and Cases. Nelson Education, 2014.
Isin, Engin. “Performative Citizenship.” The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship. 2017.