Mr. Jones Charge
Mr. Jones’s projects include some of the largest residential subdivisions within the city. The city is threatening to close down the subdivision and Mr. Jones’s business. In the case of Mr. Jones legal situation the plaintiffs may take the defendant to either a state or federal court. Mr. Jones is being taken to court for using land that did not belong to him. He is being sued by the city for fraud against a municipality and by the adjacent owner, a citizen of Switzerland, for damages to the property and for trespassing. In order to take Mr. Jones into the federal court system, the matter amount sued for most amount to $75,000 dollars or more. This case should be tried in a state court and the plaintiff may request a hearing for diversity of citizenship; “The reason for providing diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is to prevent state court bias against nonresidents.” (Cheeseman, 2007, p. 24). Since the adjacent property owner is a citizen of a foreign country, this particular argument classifies as being a state case. It does not matter what nationality the owner of the property has, he is still a resident of the same state as the developer and resides in the city, thus there’s no diversity of citizenship and no basis for Federal Court jurisdiction. What does matter is where the property in question is located. In rem jurisdiction a court may have jurisdiction to hear and decide a case because it has jurisdiction over the property at issue in the lawsuit such as real property located in the state (Cheeseman, H.R. 2007). Mr. Jones’ lawsuit should be taken directly to a state court since the issues in question deal with real estate property. When a court case is focused on “fraud against a municipality and trespassing,” it is important to define each term in order to find a way out. According to Enotes (2008) “Trespassing is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against a person or against property. Trespassing as...