Civ Pro Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Civ Pro Question

Postby 98234872348 » Sun May 02, 2010 1:22 pm

I am usually pretty sharp when it comes to civil procedure but this hypothetical is bothering me.

Say you have two plaintiffs, both suing over an event that occurred under the same transaction or occurrence and will involve similar questions of facts or law therefore satisfying rule 20(a)(1) for joinder of plaintiffs. Furthermore, say one of the plaintiffs has independent SMJ under federal arising under jurisdiction, but that the second P is not diverse from the defendant. If these claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact (therefore satisfying 1367(a)) and don't involve any defendants joinded under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, is joinder proper? I think this is pendant party jurisdiction, correct, which is not precluded by 1367. However, I'm just bothered by the fact that there is not complete diversity, which seems to violate 1332(a)(1).

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Sun May 02, 2010 1:46 pm

mistergoft wrote:I am usually pretty sharp when it comes to civil procedure but this hypothetical is bothering me.

Say you have two plaintiffs, both suing over an event that occurred under the same transaction or occurrence and will involve similar questions of facts or law therefore satisfying rule 20(a)(1) for joinder of plaintiffs. Furthermore, say one of the plaintiffs has independent SMJ under federal arising under jurisdiction, but that the second P is not diverse from the defendant. If these claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact (therefore satisfying 1367(a)) and don't involve any defendants joinded under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, is joinder proper? I think this is pendant party jurisdiction, correct, which is not precluded by 1367. However, I'm just bothered by the fact that there is not complete diversity, which seems to violate 1332(a)(1).


Edit: I totally missed you said the claim is an arising under claim. Ironically I also pointed out what that would do to the analysis below :P Mistergoft is right.

General point: You can't violate 1332(a)(1) if you're not using 1332(a)(1). Very important to always remember that complete diversity is statutory, not constitutional. There are ways to have comically incomplete diversity through chicanery with 1367 and 1441.

Now, 1367 is a disaster that walks like a man. It will win any fight you get in with it unless you proceed slowly and deliberately.

Step 1: Do we have an anchor claim? Here we do. It is very important to realize that satisfying 1367 (a) is really easy to do, and satisfying 1367(b) is a mystifying exercise in crappy legislative drafting. So to be absolutely clear: on the facts you have provided, 1367(a) grants Jx unless we can prove 1367(b) takes it away.

Step 2: A stiff drink of scotch

Step 3: 1367(b).

a) Original jurisdiction predicated on 1332: Check (this can trip you up, I've seen people work in circles when the anchor claim was 1331)
b) (skipping the tests) where exercising Jx would be inconsistent with 1332. Clearly we satisfy this, as P2 would destroy comlete diversity.
c) This is where it gets fun. If we can characterize the claim in one of the alignments listed in 1332(b) it's gone. If we can't it stands. This requires an amazing display of simultaneously thinking and ignoring any instincts you have developed, because common sense has NO PLACE in the labyrinth of the statute.
*Is the claim by a PLAINTIFF which is AGAINST A PARTY who was joined under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24?
No. The claim at issue is by a plaintiff who himself was joined, not against a party who was joined. Move on to the next round.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 19?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 24?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.

YOU ARE NOT DONE

Step 4: 1367(c) authorizes a discretionary removal of jurisdiction. You can make an argument here (though I believe it usually fails in practice) that this is an exceptional purpose. There is a deep and snarky literature about 1367's short comings and congressional efforts to patch it up.

Congratulations! Plaintiffs joined under rule 20 are one of a half dozen or so alignments where 28 U.S.C. 1367 will fuck with your head. Other fun ones: Rule 13 parties, cross claims, amount in controversy issues, etc.
Last edited by 270910 on Sun May 02, 2010 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Sun May 02, 2010 1:53 pm

What he said.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Sun May 02, 2010 1:56 pm

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
mistergoft wrote:I am usually pretty sharp when it comes to civil procedure but this hypothetical is bothering me.

Say you have two plaintiffs, both suing over an event that occurred under the same transaction or occurrence and will involve similar questions of facts or law therefore satisfying rule 20(a)(1) for joinder of plaintiffs. Furthermore, say one of the plaintiffs has independent SMJ under federal arising under jurisdiction, but that the second P is not diverse from the defendant. If these claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact (therefore satisfying 1367(a)) and don't involve any defendants joinded under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, is joinder proper? I think this is pendant party jurisdiction, correct, which is not precluded by 1367. However, I'm just bothered by the fact that there is not complete diversity, which seems to violate 1332(a)(1).

Use the P who has a freestanding claim under 1331 and attach the non-arising under P through 1367(a). The diversity thing is a non-starter. Because it's Ps trying to join IIRC, diversity Jx is improper.


Bah, that's right. I missed the arisuing under thing when I started writing out analysis. I still spotted the point where it would alter the conclusion though; this is basically a non-issue. You can have a giant legal battle exclusively between citizens of Virginia as long as it can be classified as arising under / fits 1331.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 98234872348 » Sun May 02, 2010 1:58 pm

disco_barred wrote:
mistergoft wrote:I am usually pretty sharp when it comes to civil procedure but this hypothetical is bothering me.

Say you have two plaintiffs, both suing over an event that occurred under the same transaction or occurrence and will involve similar questions of facts or law therefore satisfying rule 20(a)(1) for joinder of plaintiffs. Furthermore, say one of the plaintiffs has independent SMJ under federal arising under jurisdiction, but that the second P is not diverse from the defendant. If these claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact (therefore satisfying 1367(a)) and don't involve any defendants joinded under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, is joinder proper? I think this is pendant party jurisdiction, correct, which is not precluded by 1367. However, I'm just bothered by the fact that there is not complete diversity, which seems to violate 1332(a)(1).


Edit: I totally missed you said the claim is an arising under claim. Ironically I also pointed out what that would do to the analysis below :P Mistergoft is right.

General point: You can't violate 1332(a)(1) if you're not using 1332(a)(1). Very important to always remember that complete diversity is statutory, not constitutional. There are ways to have comically incomplete diversity through chicanery with 1367 and 1441.

Now, 1367 is a disaster that walks like a man. It will win any fight you get in with it unless you proceed slowly and deliberately.

Step 1: Do we have an anchor claim? Here we do. It is very important to realize that satisfying 1367 (a) is really easy to do, and satisfying 1367(b) is a mystifying exercise in crappy legislative drafting. So to be absolutely clear: on the facts you have provided, 1367(a) grants Jx unless we can prove 1367(b) takes it away.

Step 2: A stiff drink of scotch

Step 3: 1367(b).

a) Original jurisdiction predicated on 1332: Check (this can trip you up, I've seen people work in circles when the anchor claim was 1331)
b) (skipping the tests) where exercising Jx would be inconsistent with 1332. Clearly we satisfy this, as P2 would destroy comlete diversity.
c) This is where it gets fun. If we can characterize the claim in one of the alignments listed in 1332(b) it's gone. If we can't it stands. This requires an amazing display of simultaneously thinking and ignoring any instincts you have developed, because common sense has NO PLACE in the labyrinth of the statute.
*Is the claim by a PLAINTIFF which is AGAINST A PARTY who was joined under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24?
No. The claim at issue is by a plaintiff who himself was joined, not against a party who was joined. Move on to the next round.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 19?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 24?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.

YOU ARE NOT DONE

Step 4: 1367(c) authorizes a discretionary removal of jurisdiction. You can make an argument here (though I believe it usually fails in practice) that this is an exceptional purpose. There is a deep and snarky literature about 1367's short comings and congressional efforts to patch it up.

Congratulations! Plaintiffs joined under rule 20 are one of a half dozen or so alignments where 28 U.S.C. 1367 will fuck with your head. Other fun ones: Rule 13 parties, cross claims, amount in controversy issues, etc.

I'm glad the argument I just made in this answer has been validated; of course, under the actual question, it's not entirely clear that the co-plaintiff is authorized to be joined under Rule 20, but, for simplicity's sake I neglected to mention that.

User avatar
macattaq
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby macattaq » Sun May 02, 2010 6:06 pm

Since we've got a CP question in here, I have a question:

Is there a substantive difference between a JMOL and a directed verdict, or is it just a difference in names?

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Sun May 02, 2010 6:30 pm

macattaq wrote:Since we've got a CP question in here, I have a question:

Is there a substantive difference between a JMOL and a directed verdict, or is it just a difference in names?


The legal world tried to change the term and failed miserably. I believe it was directed verdict for a long time, then the FRCP tried to call it JMOL, but lawyers are risk and change averse MOFOs so you still here directed verdict tossed around. I may have that backwards, and that might not be the whole story, however.

User avatar
macattaq
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby macattaq » Sun May 02, 2010 8:55 pm

Thanks.

So the time line of a judge issued verdict is:

Pleading > Discovery (summary judgment clock start) > Trial (summary judgment clock stop, JMOL/DV clock start) > Send to jury (JMOL/DV clock stop) > Return verdict (JNOV)?

solidsnake
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby solidsnake » Sun May 02, 2010 9:50 pm

They want people to call directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict JMOL because that way people might forget that the latter is end-run argument around the 7A via this stunningly artful language: "If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion.”

User avatar
samiseaborn
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby samiseaborn » Mon May 03, 2010 9:47 am

Timeline looks right, just remember you can't ask for JNOV is you never asked for a DV! and also, you should ask for a new trial there at the end because if you don't bring it up there, you can't ask for one later if it goes to appeals.

User avatar
Rocky Estoppel
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:41 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby Rocky Estoppel » Mon May 03, 2010 3:42 pm

What's the difference between insufficient process and insufficient service of process? (Rule 12(b)(4)-(5))

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 98234872348 » Mon May 03, 2010 5:15 pm

Another question:

Say I have a third party plaintiff that properly joins a third party defendant under rule 14(a) because that party is liable for indemnifying it. Now, say further that the third party plaintiff has an additional claim that he brings against the third party defendant under 18(a) that has independent SMJ, say because it is against between diverse Ds who and satisfies the amount in controversy. Is it proper for that third party plaintiff to assert ANOTHER claim against another defendant who is not party to the law suit but which claim satisfies the requirement of 20(a)(2) for joining defendants because the claim against both defendants arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and involves similar questions of law and fact?

My answer stated that if the third party P had brought these actions as a counterclaim, then he would be authorized to bring in the other defendant who was not impleded under rule 14 in accordance with rule 13(h) which basically says that the joinder of additional parties to counterclaims and crossclaims is governed by rules 19 and 20 - however, that there was no clear authority under the rules to do this, unless he was authorized under rule 20(a)(2). However, it is unclear when a defendant seeks to bring in another party on a claim that is related to the claim against a 3rd party defendant whether under 20(a)(2) that party's claim must relate to the claim against the third party or the claim by the original plaintiff against the third party plaintiff.

Anyone know whether or not this is appropriate?

teebone51
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:49 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby teebone51 » Mon May 03, 2010 5:24 pm

Rocky Estoppel wrote:
Post subject: Re: Civ Pro Question Reply with quote
What's the difference between insufficient process and insufficient service of process? (Rule 12(b)(4)-(5))


insufficient process refers to the form of the process, i.e. wasn't certified, didn't notify of consequences of failing to respond; see 4(a)(1). insufficient service of process is how it's served, i.e. 120 days passed, served by a party; see 4(c)-(h).

User avatar
Rocky Estoppel
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:41 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby Rocky Estoppel » Mon May 03, 2010 5:33 pm

teebone51 wrote:
Rocky Estoppel wrote:
Post subject: Re: Civ Pro Question Reply with quote
What's the difference between insufficient process and insufficient service of process? (Rule 12(b)(4)-(5))


insufficient process refers to the form of the process, i.e. wasn't certified, didn't notify of consequences of failing to respond; see 4(a)(1). insufficient service of process is how it's served, i.e. 120 days passed, served by a party; see 4(c)-(h).
Awesome. Thanks, that makes perfect sense.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 04, 2010 5:49 pm

I'm not sure this question is answered above, so here goes:

A sues B in federal court on the basis of diversity. A is from Alabama, and B is from Vermont. B hit A w/ his car while driving and injured him (A). Two weeks later, C (a citizen of Vermont) learns that the sideview mirror that randomly hit him as he walked down the sidewalk came from A's car after B hit him.

Under Rule 20(a), C joins himself to the action. What will the court do? Dismiss the claim b/c it destroys complete diversity under Strawbridge? Does this joinder of parties fail immediately b/c the court lacks constitutional SMJ? B/c I'm reading 1367(b), and it only forbids plaintiffs proposed to be joined under Rule 19 (not 20).

In short, I'm confused. Any assistance much appreciated.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 6:01 pm

MrKappus wrote:I'm not sure this question is answered above, so here goes:

A sues B in federal court on the basis of diversity. A is from Alabama, and B is from Vermont. B hit A w/ his car while driving and injured him (A). Two weeks later, C (a citizen of Vermont) learns that the sideview mirror that randomly hit him as he walked down the sidewalk came from A's car after B hit him.

Under Rule 20(a), C joins himself to the action. What will the court do? Dismiss the claim b/c it destroys complete diversity under Strawbridge? Does this joinder of parties fail immediately b/c the court lacks constitutional SMJ? B/c I'm reading 1367(b), and it only forbids plaintiffs proposed to be joined under Rule 19 (not 20).

In short, I'm confused. Any assistance much appreciated.


It is. Read the following carefully. It's accurate, though the facts of your situation may be slightly different.

disco_barred wrote:
mistergoft wrote:I am usually pretty sharp when it comes to civil procedure but this hypothetical is bothering me.

Say you have two plaintiffs, both suing over an event that occurred under the same transaction or occurrence and will involve similar questions of facts or law therefore satisfying rule 20(a)(1) for joinder of plaintiffs. Furthermore, say one of the plaintiffs has independent SMJ under federal arising under jurisdiction, but that the second P is not diverse from the defendant. If these claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact (therefore satisfying 1367(a)) and don't involve any defendants joinded under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, is joinder proper? I think this is pendant party jurisdiction, correct, which is not precluded by 1367. However, I'm just bothered by the fact that there is not complete diversity, which seems to violate 1332(a)(1).


Edit: I totally missed you said the claim is an arising under claim. Ironically I also pointed out what that would do to the analysis below :P Mistergoft is right.

General point: You can't violate 1332(a)(1) if you're not using 1332(a)(1). Very important to always remember that complete diversity is statutory, not constitutional. There are ways to have comically incomplete diversity through chicanery with 1367 and 1441.

Now, 1367 is a disaster that walks like a man. It will win any fight you get in with it unless you proceed slowly and deliberately.

Step 1: Do we have an anchor claim? Here we do. It is very important to realize that satisfying 1367 (a) is really easy to do, and satisfying 1367(b) is a mystifying exercise in crappy legislative drafting. So to be absolutely clear: on the facts you have provided, 1367(a) grants Jx unless we can prove 1367(b) takes it away.

Step 2: A stiff drink of scotch

Step 3: 1367(b).

a) Original jurisdiction predicated on 1332: Check (this can trip you up, I've seen people work in circles when the anchor claim was 1331)
b) (skipping the tests) where exercising Jx would be inconsistent with 1332. Clearly we satisfy this, as P2 would destroy comlete diversity.
c) This is where it gets fun. If we can characterize the claim in one of the alignments listed in 1332(b) it's gone. If we can't it stands. This requires an amazing display of simultaneously thinking and ignoring any instincts you have developed, because common sense has NO PLACE in the labyrinth of the statute.
*Is the claim by a PLAINTIFF which is AGAINST A PARTY who was joined under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24?
No. The claim at issue is by a plaintiff who himself was joined, not against a party who was joined. Move on to the next round.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 19?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 24?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.

YOU ARE NOT DONE

Step 4: 1367(c) authorizes a discretionary removal of jurisdiction. You can make an argument here (though I believe it usually fails in practice) that this is an exceptional purpose. There is a deep and snarky literature about 1367's short comings and congressional efforts to patch it up.

Congratulations! Plaintiffs joined under rule 20 are one of a half dozen or so alignments where 28 U.S.C. 1367 will fuck with your head. Other fun ones: Rule 13 parties, cross claims, amount in controversy issues, etc.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 04, 2010 6:04 pm

But what if it's not an arising under claim? Sorry/Thx.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 6:07 pm

MrKappus wrote:But what if it's not an arising under claim? Sorry/Thx.


Here's what we're going to do, MrKappus. I'm going to keep repeating the same information until you've read it. Once you have done that, we can talk.

For extreme clarity: I did the analysis completely. As in, I answered the question whether it was arising under or diversity. I actually misread the original question and analyzed it as though the first claim were predicated on diversity, and made that explicit in the original and a subsequent post.


disco_barred wrote:
mistergoft wrote:I am usually pretty sharp when it comes to civil procedure but this hypothetical is bothering me.

Say you have two plaintiffs, both suing over an event that occurred under the same transaction or occurrence and will involve similar questions of facts or law therefore satisfying rule 20(a)(1) for joinder of plaintiffs. Furthermore, say one of the plaintiffs has independent SMJ under federal arising under jurisdiction, but that the second P is not diverse from the defendant. If these claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact (therefore satisfying 1367(a)) and don't involve any defendants joinded under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, is joinder proper? I think this is pendant party jurisdiction, correct, which is not precluded by 1367. However, I'm just bothered by the fact that there is not complete diversity, which seems to violate 1332(a)(1).


Edit: I totally missed you said the claim is an arising under claim. Ironically I also pointed out what that would do to the analysis below :P Mistergoft is right.

General point: You can't violate 1332(a)(1) if you're not using 1332(a)(1). Very important to always remember that complete diversity is statutory, not constitutional. There are ways to have comically incomplete diversity through chicanery with 1367 and 1441.

Now, 1367 is a disaster that walks like a man. It will win any fight you get in with it unless you proceed slowly and deliberately.

Step 1: Do we have an anchor claim? Here we do. It is very important to realize that satisfying 1367 (a) is really easy to do, and satisfying 1367(b) is a mystifying exercise in crappy legislative drafting. So to be absolutely clear: on the facts you have provided, 1367(a) grants Jx unless we can prove 1367(b) takes it away.

Step 2: A stiff drink of scotch

Step 3: 1367(b).

a) Original jurisdiction predicated on 1332: Check (this can trip you up, I've seen people work in circles when the anchor claim was 1331)
b) (skipping the tests) where exercising Jx would be inconsistent with 1332. Clearly we satisfy this, as P2 would destroy comlete diversity.
c) This is where it gets fun. If we can characterize the claim in one of the alignments listed in 1332(b) it's gone. If we can't it stands. This requires an amazing display of simultaneously thinking and ignoring any instincts you have developed, because common sense has NO PLACE in the labyrinth of the statute.
*Is the claim by a PLAINTIFF which is AGAINST A PARTY who was joined under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24?
No. The claim at issue is by a plaintiff who himself was joined, not against a party who was joined. Move on to the next round.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 19?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 24?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.

YOU ARE NOT DONE

Step 4: 1367(c) authorizes a discretionary removal of jurisdiction. You can make an argument here (though I believe it usually fails in practice) that this is an exceptional purpose. There is a deep and snarky literature about 1367's short comings and congressional efforts to patch it up.

Congratulations! Plaintiffs joined under rule 20 are one of a half dozen or so alignments where 28 U.S.C. 1367 will fuck with your head. Other fun ones: Rule 13 parties, cross claims, amount in controversy issues, etc.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 04, 2010 6:12 pm

I do appreciate the answers. My question is not clear, and that is my fault.

The disconnect I am having is: Does joinder of person C under Rule 20(a) mean there are no new claims (over which Supp Jx must be exercised), which is why 1367(b) doesn't mention it?

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 6:18 pm

MrKappus wrote:I do appreciate the answers. My question is not clear, and that is my fault.

The disconnect I am having is: Does joinder of person C under Rule 20(a) mean there are no new claims (over which Supp Jx must be exercised), which is why 1367(b) doesn't mention it?




disco_barred wrote:
mistergoft wrote:I am usually pretty sharp when it comes to civil procedure but this hypothetical is bothering me.

Say you have two plaintiffs, both suing over an event that occurred under the same transaction or occurrence and will involve similar questions of facts or law therefore satisfying rule 20(a)(1) for joinder of plaintiffs. Furthermore, say one of the plaintiffs has independent SMJ under federal arising under jurisdiction, but that the second P is not diverse from the defendant. If these claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact (therefore satisfying 1367(a)) and don't involve any defendants joinded under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, is joinder proper? I think this is pendant party jurisdiction, correct, which is not precluded by 1367. However, I'm just bothered by the fact that there is not complete diversity, which seems to violate 1332(a)(1).


Edit: I totally missed you said the claim is an arising under claim. Ironically I also pointed out what that would do to the analysis below :P Mistergoft is right.

General point: You can't violate 1332(a)(1) if you're not using 1332(a)(1). Very important to always remember that complete diversity is statutory, not constitutional. There are ways to have comically incomplete diversity through chicanery with 1367 and 1441.

Now, 1367 is a disaster that walks like a man. It will win any fight you get in with it unless you proceed slowly and deliberately.

Step 1: Do we have an anchor claim? Here we do. It is very important to realize that satisfying 1367 (a) is really easy to do, and satisfying 1367(b) is a mystifying exercise in crappy legislative drafting. So to be absolutely clear: on the facts you have provided, 1367(a) grants Jx unless we can prove 1367(b) takes it away.

Step 2: A stiff drink of scotch

Step 3: 1367(b).

a) Original jurisdiction predicated on 1332: Check (this can trip you up, I've seen people work in circles when the anchor claim was 1331)
b) (skipping the tests) where exercising Jx would be inconsistent with 1332. Clearly we satisfy this, as P2 would destroy comlete diversity.
c) This is where it gets fun. If we can characterize the claim in one of the alignments listed in 1332(b) it's gone. If we can't it stands. This requires an amazing display of simultaneously thinking and ignoring any instincts you have developed, because common sense has NO PLACE in the labyrinth of the statute.
*Is the claim by a PLAINTIFF which is AGAINST A PARTY who was joined under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24?
No. The claim at issue is by a plaintiff who himself was joined, not against a party who was joined. Move on to the next round.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 19?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.
*Is the claim by a person proposed to be joined under rule 24?
No. You said joinder is under rule 20.

YOU ARE NOT DONE

Step 4: 1367(c) authorizes a discretionary removal of jurisdiction. You can make an argument here (though I believe it usually fails in practice) that this is an exceptional purpose. There is a deep and snarky literature about 1367's short comings and congressional efforts to patch it up.

Congratulations! Plaintiffs joined under rule 20 are one of a half dozen or so alignments where 28 U.S.C. 1367 will fuck with your head. Other fun ones: Rule 13 parties, cross claims, amount in controversy issues, etc.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 98234872348 » Tue May 04, 2010 6:42 pm

MrKappus wrote:I'm not sure this question is answered above, so here goes:

A sues B in federal court on the basis of diversity. A is from Alabama, and B is from Vermont. B hit A w/ his car while driving and injured him (A). Two weeks later, C (a citizen of Vermont) learns that the sideview mirror that randomly hit him as he walked down the sidewalk came from A's car after B hit him.

Under Rule 20(a), C joins himself to the action. What will the court do? Dismiss the claim b/c it destroys complete diversity under Strawbridge? Does this joinder of parties fail immediately b/c the court lacks constitutional SMJ? B/c I'm reading 1367(b), and it only forbids plaintiffs proposed to be joined under Rule 19 (not 20).

In short, I'm confused. Any assistance much appreciated.

He is not allowed to do this, since this would destroy complete diversity under Strawbridge. In Exxon Mobil the court found, notwithstanding that its conclusion was counter intuitive, that the complete diversity requirement continues to have vitality under 1367(b). Read example 14 in chapter 16 of the E&E for a more thorough explanation of the issue.

hth.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 04, 2010 6:56 pm

^

This completely answers my question. Thank you a ton.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 7:06 pm

mistergoft wrote:
MrKappus wrote:I'm not sure this question is answered above, so here goes:

A sues B in federal court on the basis of diversity. A is from Alabama, and B is from Vermont. B hit A w/ his car while driving and injured him (A). Two weeks later, C (a citizen of Vermont) learns that the sideview mirror that randomly hit him as he walked down the sidewalk came from A's car after B hit him.

Under Rule 20(a), C joins himself to the action. What will the court do? Dismiss the claim b/c it destroys complete diversity under Strawbridge? Does this joinder of parties fail immediately b/c the court lacks constitutional SMJ? B/c I'm reading 1367(b), and it only forbids plaintiffs proposed to be joined under Rule 19 (not 20).

In short, I'm confused. Any assistance much appreciated.

He is not allowed to do this, since this would destroy complete diversity under Strawbridge. In Exxon Mobil the court found, notwithstanding that its conclusion was counter intuitive, that the complete diversity requirement continues to have vitality under 1367(b). Read example 14 in chapter 16 of the E&E for a more thorough explanation of the issue.

hth.


WTF?

Exxon Mobile is about joinder of plaintiffs and the amount in controversy requirement.

To put it as simply as possible, assuming for simplicity all amount in controversy requirements are easily met:

A(VA) sues B(PA) under 1332

C(PA) joins under rule 20 and meets the common nucleus test in 1367(a)

Jurisdiction is valid.

If you want to see how it works by applying the statute one step at a time, read the post I've quoted a half dozen times.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby MrKappus » Tue May 04, 2010 7:08 pm

You should read the answer to #14 in Ch. 16 of the E&E.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Civ Pro Question

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 7:09 pm

Glannon is wrong.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LandMermaid, torilynn and 8 guests