October Term 2005 · Docket 04-712
Does a real estate firm's ownership of a property defeat federal diversity jurisdiction?
A tenant sued a state board and a property manager. The state board claims the manager is not a real party. The manager claims it is a proper defendant.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Frederick argued the case is a routine diversity matter.
He stated the original defendants are proper and diverse parties.
Mr. Joseph argued the property manager is not a real party.
He contended the lower court judgment should stand.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 1-15 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 1-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests how courts identify the true parties in a lawsuit. It asks if a company managing a property is a distinct legal entity for jurisdiction. The answer affects which courts hear real estate disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-41
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 11, 2005.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
The tenant wants the case to proceed in federal court.
The property manager wants the case to stay in state court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-41
What each side says
The tenant argues the property manager is a real party in interest.
The property manager argues it is not a real party in interest.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-41
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if the defendant ever claimed to sue itself.
Justice Souter questioned if proper service makes a party the only one for diversity checks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 1-15 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 1-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-45
Why it matters
This dispute defines who counts as a party in federal court. It shapes access to federal tribunals for business disputes. It clarifies the role of property managers in litigation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-41
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 1-15 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 1-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-45
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-41
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.