Short Essay Question 1 [12 points]
P1 (an American subject domiciled in New York) and P2 (a French subject domiciled in France) together wish to sue D1 (a French subject admitted for permanent residency in the United States and domiciled in New York) in federal court in California under French negligence law for a car accident that occurred in France.
Briefly describe why there is currently no subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction for their action. (6 points)
Briefly: Could Congress remove these subject matter and personal jurisdiction impediments and why or why not? (6 points)
There is no SMJ because the case is not a diversity action under 1332(a)(1) (there is no citizen of a state on the defendant side)  and is not an alienage case under 1332(a)(2) because there isn't complete alienage (there is an alien on both sides)  and because D1 is admitted for permanent residency in the US and is domiciled in the same state as P1 .
There is no PJ because under FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) a federal court will have PJ only if a state court where the federal court is located would.  There are no contacts between D1 and California to create PJ in California state court. 
Congress has the power to remove the restrictions in 1332(a)(2) and give this case alienage SMJ.  That is because Article III alienage jurisdiction requires only minimal alienage. Here there is minimal alienage because there is a citizen of a state (P1) on one side and a citizen or subject of a foreign state (D1) on the other. 
Congress has the power to remove the restrictions in FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) and give this case PJ in federal court in California.  That is because there are 5th Amendment due process contacts between D1 and the United States (D1, although an alien, is domiciled in the US, specifically NY).