John, a State District Attorney, files a complaint in the proper U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin a pro-communist rally. He alleges the rally is being held without a license, in violation of a state statute. John asserts federal question jurisdiction by alleging that the defendants have publicly claimed immunity for such rallies on First Amendment grounds. Dalton, the group leader, files an FRCP 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He alternatively claims immunity from prosecution under the First Amendment as an affirmative defense.

Should Dalton’s motion be granted? Explain your answer.

Dodo is a State X partnership composed of Jim Do and Bob Do. They manufacture and lease large ovens that are used in restaurants. Dodo’s only plant and business office is in State X.

Three months ago, the president of Dominic’s (a fashionable eating spot in State Z) made a trip to State X and leased an oven from Dodo.

Dominic’s is incorporated in State Z, where its restaurant is located. The stock of Dominic’s is held by Carl, Fred and Alice. The Do brothers are domiciled in State X. Two weeks ago, Paul (an employee of Dominic’s) was hurt when the “door” of the leased oven suddenly fell open upon him. Paul sued both Dodo and Dominic’s in the U.S. District Court in State Z. Jim and Bob Do were personally served in State X. Dominic’s was served pursuant to a State Z statute which permits notice of the lawsuit to be (1) left with someone of “suitable discretion” at the defendant’s home or main business premises, or (2) if no such person is available, posted on the door which is most often used by the occupants of the defendant’s home or main business premises. Paul’s process server utilized the latter method. The president of Dominic’s saw the notice and delivered the summons and service of process to the corporation’s attorneys.

Q.  What do we need to know to determine subject matter jurisdiction?