Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
presenceofmind
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:58 am

Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby presenceofmind » Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:43 pm

On page 58 in the capsule summary section for subject matter jurisdiction, the first example states that "P, from NY, brings a diversity suit against D, from NJ. The claim is for $60,000." The example goes on to discuss how supplemental jurisdiction would come into play if D counterclaimed against a third-party. But it doesn't mention anything about how P fails SMJ by not meeting the amount in controversy requirement.

Can anyone confirm that this example is incorrect in that P would fail in his diversity suit automatically since his claim is not $75,000 or greater?

Thanks!

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby Lawl Shcool » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:21 pm

Check to see if the supplement was written before the rule changed to 75k, it used to be 50k. Not sure when this came into effect. Side note, my civ pro prof said that during her 1L at Harvard the rules changed on Dec. 1, after the class had ended for the semester, and they were responsible for all the new rule changes on the exam (including a change to the amount in controversy requirement).

User avatar
Kiersten1985
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:36 pm

Re: Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby Kiersten1985 » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:29 pm

I would venture to guess that's the case.

Second side note (I wanted to check when the $75k amount was passed), the amount in controversy is wrong on wikipedia and it's bothering me way more than it should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_ ... ontroversy

EDIT: I looked at this in my crunchtime and I also think it's a mistake now, too, since in the same hypo they talk about how a rule 13 joinder party doesn't have to meet the $75k requirement. Hmm.

presenceofmind
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:58 am

Re: Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby presenceofmind » Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:40 am

Thanks for the feedback! It is much appreciated!

That's exactly what threw me off too: how it mentions the $75k requirement not having to be met by a rule 13 joinder party.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby vamedic03 » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:49 pm

presenceofmind wrote:On page 58 in the capsule summary section for subject matter jurisdiction, the first example states that "P, from NY, brings a diversity suit against D, from NJ. The claim is for $60,000." The example goes on to discuss how supplemental jurisdiction would come into play if D counterclaimed against a third-party. But it doesn't mention anything about how P fails SMJ by not meeting the amount in controversy requirement.

Can anyone confirm that this example is incorrect in that P would fail in his diversity suit automatically since his claim is not $75,000 or greater?

Thanks!


Unless your prof is trying to make a really easy exam, the amount in controversy usually won't be the key factor in the analysis. I mention this, not to be snarky, but just as advice not to spend more than a couple sentences on amounts in controversy.

[NB - if you're professor spent days and days on AIC issues, disregard]

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby vanwinkle » Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:00 pm

vamedic03 wrote:Unless your prof is trying to make a really easy exam, the amount in controversy usually won't be the key factor in the analysis. I mention this, not to be snarky, but just as advice not to spend more than a couple sentences on amounts in controversy.

[NB - if you're professor spent days and days on AIC issues, disregard]

+1

I'd just assume it's an error. I see no reason to think otherwise. You know the "over $75,000" requirement, you also know to pay attention to where it doesn't apply (Rule 13, etc.), so you're good. Don't freak out over this, you're preparing properly.

User avatar
dood
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby dood » Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:07 pm

...
Last edited by dood on Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cyrus561
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Crunchtime Civ Pro - incorrect example?

Postby cyrus561 » Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:00 pm

Yeazell, 7ed. pp 201-202. Amount in Controversy
Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 US 546.

"In Allapattah the court had to decide whether to include within the supplemental jurisdiction granted by 28 USC 1367 claims held by parties who met the diversity requirement but for less than $75k. Yes, said the court, in part because the amount in controversy requirement was less central to the idea of diversity jurisdiction." p.202-214

As long as from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent to a legal certainty that the PL cannot recover the amount claimed or was ever able to, then the courts will *consider* dismissal.

Don't forget, punitive damages resulting from the case may take the amount in controversy over the cap.

Since the example in the Crunch Time book doesn't give complete circumstances and it's attempting to illustrate a different point (joinder of parties in counterclaims), I would focus on the point it's trying to make.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest