Memorandum
Re: Complaint Drafting Exercise Individual Short Memo

General Information Regarding Group Dynamic
The complaint drafting assignment was a very interesting and valuable practical exercise for a number of reasons. I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to apply what we’ve learned thus far in the same manner as a practicing attorney. Working within a group also afforded each of us the opportunity to draw on each other’s strengths throughout the process. Although we discussed the elements of each claim at length, we did not disagree on whether to include or omit any of the suggested claims listed in the assignment.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Federal Question
We examined the issues of jurisdiction first. Count 1 of the complaint arises under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. 25 U.S.C. §305(e). Count II of the complaint pertains to Federal Trademark dilution pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(c). Both of the allegations arise under federal substantive law. Therefore, we determined that the court may exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. Additionally, we carefully crafted the wording of the complaint to comport with the well-pleaded complaint rule. Mottley.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity
We also determined that the court would be able to exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Plaintiff Big Crow is a resident and citizen of South Dakota. The corporate defendant, Brewing Company, is incorporated in the state of New York and also has its principal place of business in the state of New York. Based on these findings, there is complete diversity of citizenship between the two parties. Additionally, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, the court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
We then turned our jurisdictional analysis to supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367. The remaining causes of action, defamation, libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and right of publicity, are all allegations that arise under state law. For the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, the court must have original jurisdiction over at least one claim and the state causes of action must arise under the same common nucleus of operative fact as the claim for which the court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1367 and Gibbs. As aforementioned, we determined that the court has original jurisdiction over two federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Additionally, the court is able to exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332. Each of the claims arises from the same set of circumstances surrounding the defendant’s use of the Crazy Horse image.
Venue
Venue determines which judicial district a case may be heard in. Venue is determined by judicial district, not by state. Under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are from the same state.
28 U.S.C. 1391(d) provides: Residency of Corporations in States With Multiple Districts.— For purposes of venue under this chapter, in a State which has more than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant contacts.
Under 1391(b)(2) venue may also be proper in any district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
The facts here indicate that the individual who suffered damage as a result of the defendant’s actions are residents of South Dakota. Furthermore, the actions giving rise to the damage occurred in South Dakota. Thus, we determined that venue is proper in South Dakota under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2).
Pleading Standard
The factual allegations of the complaint comport with the notice pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Detailed factual allegations” are not required. Twombly. In Twombly, the court held that Rule 8 requires plausible factual allegations, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
The notice pleadings standard allows a party to generally state facts that are sufficient to notify the defendant of the nature of the allegations without providing specific evidence to support each allegation. Here, the listed allegations provide sufficient detail that the defendant has been placed on notice regarding the general factual circumstances surrounding the basis of each complaint. The factual detail listed within the complaint should, therefore, preclude or defeat any potential defense motion to dismiss under Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).