Questions: Weaver, a disgruntled former employee of Spano domiciled in Oregon, sues Xerxes and Spano in federal court in California based on diversity, claiming that they breached his contract by firing him. The federal court Gibbs, the manager of a new mine opening in Tennessee, decides to sue the United Mine Workers, a national miners' union, for interference with his contract to run the mine. Gibbs is from Tennessee. The headquarters of the United Mine Workers is in Kentucky. The case will likely not be proper in federal court based on diversity. Magnifico Corporation is incorporated in Kansas and has its principal place of business in Nebraska. It sues Robbins, a citizen of Nebraska, in federal court. The federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the suit.

To address the questions presented:

1. Weaver's Case:

   • Weaver, a former employee of Spano, is suing Xerxes and Spano in federal court in California based on diversity jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction to be proper, there must be complete diversity between the parties, meaning that no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. Weaver is domiciled in Oregon, and the case is filed in California. The key factor here is the state citizenship of Xerxes and Spano. If neither Xerxes nor Spano is domiciled in Oregon, then diversity jurisdiction is proper. However, if either is domiciled in Oregon, diversity jurisdiction would not be proper.

2. Gibbs' Case:

   • The statement is True. For diversity jurisdiction to be proper, there must be complete diversity between the parties. Gibbs is from Tennessee, and the United Mine Workers, being a national union, likely has members domiciled in Tennessee. Since the state citizenship of a union is based on the domicile of each of its members, it is highly probable that complete diversity does not exist. Therefore, the case will likely not be proper in federal court based on diversity. However, Gibbs could still pursue a federal court case if he has a claim under federal law.

3. Magnifico Corporation's Case:

   • The statement is False. For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different states. Magnifico Corporation is incorporated in Kansas and has its principal place of business in Nebraska, making it a citizen of both Kansas and Nebraska. Robbins is a citizen of Nebraska. Since both Magnifico Corporation and Robbins are citizens of Nebraska, there is no complete diversity, and thus, the federal court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the suit.