Online Attorney

Form 2. Allegation of Jurisdiction (a) Jurisdiction founded on diversity of citizenship and amount. Plaintiff is a [citizen of the State of Connecticut] 1 [corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Connecticut having its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut] and defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York having its principal place of business in a State other than the State of Connecticut. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (b) Jurisdiction founded on the existence of a Federal question. The action arises under [the Constitution of the United States, Article _, Section _]; [the _ Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section _]; [the Act of _, _ Stat. _; U.S.C., Title _, § _]; [the Treaty of the United States (here describe the treaty)] 2 as hereinafter more fully appears. (c) Jurisdiction founded on the existence of a question arising under particular statutes. The action arises under the Act of ___, ___ Stat. ___; U.S.C., Title ___, § ___, as hereinafter more fully appears. (d) Jurisdiction founded on the admiralty or maritime character of the claim. This is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as hereinafter more fully appears. [If the pleader wishes to invoke the distinctively maritime procedures referred to in Rule 9(h), add the following or its substantial equivalent: This is an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h).] 1 Form for natural person. 2 Use the appropriate phrase or phrases. The general allegation of the existence of a Federal question is ineffective unless the matters constituting the claim for relief as set forth in the complaint raise a Federal question. EXPLANATORY NOTES 1. Diversity of Citizenship. U.S.C., Title 28, § 1332 (Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs), as amended by P.L. 85-554, 72 Stat. 415, July 25, 1958, states in subsection (c) that "For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title [removable actions], a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." Thus if the defendant corporation in Form 2(a) had its principal place of business in Connecticut, diversity of citizenship would not exist. An allegation regarding the principal place of business of each corporate party must be made in addition to an allegation regarding its place of incorporation. 2. Jurisdictional Amount. U.S.C., Title 28, § 1331 (Federal question; amount in controversy; costs) and § 1332 (Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs), as amended by P.L. 85-554, 72 Stat. 415, July 25, 1958, require that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, be in excess of $10,000. The allegation as to the amount in controversy may be omitted in any case where by law no jurisdictional amount is required. See, for example, U.S.C., Title 28, § 1338 (Patents, copyrights, trade-marks, and unfair competition), § 1343 (Civil rights and elective franchise). 3. Pleading Venue. Since improper venue is a matter of defense, it is not necessary for plaintiff to include allegations showing the venue to be proper. See 1 Moore's Federal Practice, par. 0.140 [1.--4] (2d ed. 1959). (As amended Apr. 17, 1961, eff. July 19, 1961; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 26, 1999, eff. Dec. 1, 1999.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES--1966 AMENDMENT Since the Civil Rules have not heretofore been applicable to proceedings in Admiralty (Rule 81(a)(1)), Form 2 naturally has not contained a provision for invoking the admiralty jurisdiction. The form has never purported to be comprehensive, as making provision for all possible grounds of jurisdiction; but a provision for invoking the admiralty jurisdiction is particularly appropriate as an incident of unification. Certain distinctive features of the admiralty practice must be preserved in unification, just as certain distinctive characteristics of equity were preserved in the merger of law and equity in 1938. Rule 9(h) provides the device whereby, after unification, with its abolition of the distinction between civil actions and suits in admiralty, the pleader may indicate his choice of the distinctively maritime procedures, and designates those features that are preserved. This form illustrates an appropriate way in which the pleader may invoke those procedures. Use of this device is not necessary if the claim is cognizable only by virtue of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, nor if the claim is within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the district court. Omission of a statement such as this from the pleading indicates the pleader's choice that the action proceed as a conventional civil action, if this is jurisdictionally possible, without the distinctive maritime remedies and procedures. It should be remembered, however, that Rule 9(h) provides that a pleading may be amended to add or withdraw such an identifying statement subject to the principles stated in Rule 15. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES--1993 AMENDMENT This form is revised to reflect amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1332 providing jurisdiction for federal questions without regard to the amount in controversy and raising the amount required to be in controversy in diversity cases to fifty thousand dollars. Form 3. Complaint on a Promissory Note 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. Defendant on or about June 1, 1935, executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note [in the following words and figures: (here set out the note verbatim)]; [a copy of which is hereto annexed as Exhibit A]; [whereby defendant promised to pay to plaintiff or order on June 1, 1936 the sum of ___ dollars with interest thereon at the rate of six percent. per annum]. 3. Defendant owes to plaintiff the amount of said note and interest. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of ___ dollars, interest, and costs. Signed: ______________, Attorney for Plaintiff. Address: _____________ NOTES 1. The pleader may use the material in one of the three sets of brackets. His choice will depend upon whether he desires to plead the document verbatim, or by exhibit, or according to its legal effect. 2. Under the rules free joinder of claims is permitted. See rules 8(e) and 18. Consequently the claims set forth in each and all of the following forms may be joined with this complaint or with each other. Ordinarily each claim should be stated in a separate division of the complaint, and the divisions should be designated as counts successively numbered. In particular the rules permit alternative and inconsistent pleading. See Form 10. (As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES--1963 AMENDMENT At various places, these Forms [Forms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21] allege or refer to damages of "ten thousand dollars, interest, and costs," or the like. The Forms were written at a time when the jurisdictional amount in ordinary "diversity" and "Federal question" cases was an amount in excess of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, so the illustrative amounts set out in the Forms were adequate for jurisdictional purposes. However, U.S.C. Title 28, § 1331 (Federal question; amount in controversy; costs) and § 1332 (Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs), as amended by Pub. Law 85-554, 72 Stat. 415, July 25, 1958, now require that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, be in excess of $10,000. Accordingly the Forms are misleading. They are amended at appropriate places by deleting the stated dollar amount and substituting a blank, to be properly filled in by the pleader. Form 4. Complaint on an Account 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. Defendant owes plaintiff ___ dollars according to the account hereto annexed as Exhibit A. Wherefore (etc. as in Form 3). (As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES--1963 AMENDMENT This form was amended in 1963 by deleting the stated dollar amount and substituting a blank, to be properly filled in by the pleader. See Note of Advisory Committee under Form 3. Form 5. Complaint for Goods Sold and Delivered 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. Defendant owes plaintiff ___ dollars for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant between June 1, 1936 and December 1, 1936. Wherefore (etc. as in Form 3). NOTE This form may be used where the action is for an agreed price or for the reasonable value of the goods. (As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES--1963 AMENDMENT This form was amended in 1963 by deleting the stated dollar amount and substituting a blank, to be properly filled in by the pleader. See Note of Advisory Committee under Form 3. Form 6. Complaint for Money Lent 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. Defendant owes plaintiff ___ dollars for money lent by plaintiff to defendant on June 1, 1936. Wherefore (etc. as in Form 3). (As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES--1963 AMENDMENT This form was amended in 1963 by deleting the stated dollar amount and substituting a blank, to be properly filled in by the pleader. See Note of Advisory Committee under Form 3. Form 7. Complaint for Money Paid by Mistake 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. Defendant owes plaintiff ___ dollars for money paid by plaintiff to defendant by mistake on June 1, 1936, under the following circumstances: [here state the circumstances with particularity--see Rule 9(b)]. Wherefore (etc. as in Form 3). (As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES--1963 AMENDMENT This form was amended in 1963 by deleting the stated dollar amount and substituting a blank, to be properly filled in by the pleader. See Note of Advisory Committee under Form 3.

Online Attorney