Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:53 pm

A from South Dakota sues B from Maine for injuries out of a car accident that happened in South Dakota. A sues B for 74k plus unspecified punitive and pain and suffering damages. B was driving through South Dakota as an agent on behalf of person C who is a resident of Maine too.

A sues in state court, B removes to federal court. Then, B impleads C for 25k.

Assume for the sake of the question that personal jurisdiction is proper for everyone.

------------------
My question is, can B implead C if it does not satisfy the amount in controversy? Or, is it allowable because A suing B is the main claim, which satisfied subject matter jurisdiction and, thus, the court does not have to go through the same analysis? My thought is that it is the latter.

I will clarify any questions to this hypo if need be.


Thanks!

dakatz
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

Postby dakatz » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:58 pm

If A's claim against B has original jurisdiction, then B can implead whomever he wants as long as the claim is derivative of and dependent on A's claim against B. It would be proper under 1367 supplemental jurisdiction, so that is the analysis you want to use.

onthemoney
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

Postby onthemoney » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:00 pm

Impleader by nature must be a derivatives of the main claim, hence it's clearly of the same transaction or occurence as the main claim. Therefore, there will be supplemental jurisdicition under 1367a, and does not need it's own basis of subject matter jurisdiction (b'c it doesn't; 25k is too low).

I'd say you'd proabably get extra points on an exam by pointing why it does not have diversity or federal question jurisdiction (even though it will have under 1367).

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:03 pm

Thank you guys! (or maybe you are girls lol, either way, thanks!).

this is what I thought but my study group was just over analyzing the issue because we were so dead tired.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

Postby Always Credited » Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:55 am

Also point out the probable scenario that B's impleader of C will fail, since in all likelihood the liability is not derivative.

onthemoney
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

Postby onthemoney » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:55 pm

Always Credited wrote:Also point out the probable scenario that B's impleader of C will fail, since in all likelihood the liability is not derivative.

Why is that so?

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Hypo Question

Postby keg411 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:38 pm

I did this exam and talked to the professor about it. Two things:
1) You have to talk how, although the punitive damages do not meet the amount in controversy, however, the court will likely allow it because if the P were to prevail the punitive damages would likely bring the claim over the $75,000 amount in controversy (however, the amount of punitive damages have to be allowed for this kind of case in SD... if they aren't, the claim will not meet the amount in controversy and was improperly removed to federal court).

2) You can also analyze the impleader using 1367, but if you look carefully, the D is bringing the the third party D for liability to the original D not for joint and several liability to the original P, and impleaders are not allowed for that (you need J&S liability). However, if the impleader was correct, the court could take supplemental jurisdiction, because it "arises out of" the same cause of action, and 1367b does not exclude claims by Defendants against TPD's even if the claim meets neither diversity of citizenship (since they are both from ME) nor amount in controversy.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], weneedahealer and 8 guests