Civil Procedure

Dunn v. McMurray — Study Notes

Dunn v. McMurray, 597 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2023)

Study notes for Dunn v. McMurray: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

A change in domicile must be clearly established to support diversity jurisdiction for case removal.
Professor Notes

In Dunn v. McMurray, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the requirements for establishing diversity jurisdiction, specifically focusing on the concept of domicile. A professor may emphasize the distinction between mere residency and legal domicile, urging students to grasp the implications of a change in domicile on jurisdictional courts. The case highlights the burden on the party seeking removal to clearly demonstrate that diversity exists—here, McMurray's failure to prove her change in domicile left the federal court without jurisdiction due to lack of diversity.

Additionally, the ruling serves as a reminder that while parties can seek to remove cases to federal court on various jurisdictional grounds, the burden of proof lies with the proponent of such removal. This case is illustrative for understanding how courts assess issues of domicile and residency and the implications for jurisdictional disputes in commercial litigation.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What was the primary reason the Ninth Circuit rejected McMurray's removal of the case?
  2. 2How does domicile differ from residency in the context of establishing diversity jurisdiction?
  3. 3What is the burden of proof under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 for removing a case based on diversity?
  4. 4Can a party simply claim a new state of residence to achieve diversity jurisdiction?
  5. 5What are the elements a plaintiff must prove to successfully challenge jurisdiction in removal cases?
Mnemonic Device

Diversity Depends on Domicile – proof needed!

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Strawbridge v. CurtissIn Strawbridge, the court found sufficient evidence of complete diversity based on clear domicile declarations, unlike McMurray's reliance on unproven assertions.
Caterpillar Inc. v. LewisCaterpillar emphasized that the removal process must affirmatively establish jurisdiction, while Dunn illustrates failure to meet the burden of proof.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Enforcing a strict standard for establishing domicile protects against potential forum shopping and ensures that federal courts maintain legitimate jurisdiction.

Against the Rule

Strict requirements may limit access to federal courts for parties genuinely seeking relief across state lines, creating unnecessary hurdles.

Class Discussion Points
  • Discussion on the implications of conflicting claims of domicile in jurisdictional matters.
  • Exploration of how courts assess credibility when determining domicile.
  • Debate on the balance between federal jurisdictional standards and state court access.
Exam Angle

This case may appear on exams in discussions about the requirements for diversity jurisdiction and the associated burden of proof in removal cases, particularly focusing on domicile inquiries.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.