SMJ for counterclaims

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

SMJ for counterclaims

Postby BCLS » Sun May 08, 2011 5:40 pm

Are we supposed to go through and determine if counterclaims have SMJ?

Example, P sues D. D asserts a compulsory and a permissive counterclaim against P. Assuming there is diversity SMJ for P's claim against D, we now need to determine if there is SMJ for both of D's counterclaims, right?

CyLaw
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby CyLaw » Sun May 08, 2011 5:43 pm

Supplemental jurisdiction would cover the counterclaims by defendant.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby BCLS » Sun May 08, 2011 5:44 pm

So I guess in my scenario above, a compulsory counterclaim would satisfy 1367 supplement jurisdiction by definition, so the district court can exercise its power over that claim. Another counterclaim, for defamation, if arising out of a common nucleus of operative fact as the main claim, would also work for supplemental jurisdiction.

This is assuming neither claim exceed 75k so they dont have independent SMJ.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby BCLS » Sun May 08, 2011 5:44 pm

CyLaw wrote:Supplemental jurisdiction would cover the counterclaims by defendant.


Ah you beat me too it. Ok so on an exam, we need to go through each claim and make sure they all have SMJ right?

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby BCLS » Sun May 08, 2011 5:46 pm

Cylaw, one more question for you.

For venue, do we go through each claim and make sure there is proper venue, or do we look at the suit generally? Does this make sense?

Up until this point, I have been looking at each CLAIM, and asking if there is SMJ, PJ, and Venue, is this right?

Thanks man!

CyLaw
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby CyLaw » Sun May 08, 2011 5:49 pm

I believe that is correct (first post). In the case of the permissive counterclaim, you would have to ensure smj

I believe you are correct in the second post also. But I am honestly not sure.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby BCLS » Sun May 08, 2011 5:50 pm

Thanks man, ignore my pm lol. I didn't know if you were going to come back haha.

I'll ask my professor about this.

CyLaw
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby CyLaw » Sun May 08, 2011 5:51 pm

BCLS wrote:
CyLaw wrote:Supplemental jurisdiction would cover the counterclaims by defendant.


Ah you beat me too it. Ok so on an exam, we need to go through each claim and make sure they all have SMJ right?


Be careful though, as a single π can aggregate all their claims against a single ∂ to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby BCLS » Sun May 08, 2011 5:53 pm

CyLaw wrote:
BCLS wrote:
CyLaw wrote:Supplemental jurisdiction would cover the counterclaims by defendant.


Ah you beat me too it. Ok so on an exam, we need to go through each claim and make sure they all have SMJ right?


Be careful though, as a single π can aggregate all their claims against a single ∂ to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.

Yes I understand that, thanks man. So essentially if there is a plaintiff with three claims, say 50k, 20k and 6k, we can say the 75k amount in controversy is met, and since we are concerned with the amount in controversy, this is obviously diversity SMJ and we are good.

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

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby vanwinkle » Sun May 08, 2011 6:09 pm

BCLS wrote:
CyLaw wrote:Supplemental jurisdiction would cover the counterclaims by defendant.

Ah you beat me too it. Ok so on an exam, we need to go through each claim and make sure they all have SMJ right?

It depends on the question. READ THE QUESTION. I can't emphasize this enough; it's a mistake I even make sometimes myself still. You start writing, spend a few minutes producing an answer, and then realize, wait, the professor only asked about Defendant 2, and I've been talking about Plaintiff and Defendant 1 the last 15 minutes.

If the question asks generally whether the court has SMJ over the case, you'll need to make sure each claim by all parties has it. If it asks about one party's claims, you should only discuss SMJ for each of his claims. Maybe a question will ask only about one claim, if your professor is that specific (most aren't but it happens).

What you have to do on an exam varies greatly by professor. Find out what yours asks.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby BCLS » Sun May 08, 2011 6:11 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
BCLS wrote:
CyLaw wrote:Supplemental jurisdiction would cover the counterclaims by defendant.

Ah you beat me too it. Ok so on an exam, we need to go through each claim and make sure they all have SMJ right?

It depends on the question. READ THE QUESTION. I can't emphasize this enough; it's a mistake I even make sometimes myself still. You start writing, spend a few minutes producing an answer, and then realize, wait, the professor only asked about Defendant 2, and I've been talking about Plaintiff and Defendant 1 the last 15 minutes.

If the question asks generally whether the court has SMJ over the case, you'll need to make sure each claim by all parties has it. If it asks about one party's claims, you should only discuss SMJ for each of his claims.

What you have to do on an exam varies greatly by professor. Find out what yours asks.


Great tip. You have been immensely helpful these past few days.

Vanwinkle, do you know the answer to my venue question above? Do we go through each CLAIM, and determine if venue is proper, or look at the entire suit from the abstract?

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: SMJ for counterclaims

Postby random5483 » Mon May 09, 2011 12:20 am

BCLS wrote:Are we supposed to go through and determine if counterclaims have SMJ?

Example, P sues D. D asserts a compulsory and a permissive counterclaim against P. Assuming there is diversity SMJ for P's claim against D, we now need to determine if there is SMJ for both of D's counterclaims, right?


Assuming the case is a diversity case, as long as the original claim has diversity subject matter jurisdiction, both counterclaims will have it as well.


BCLS wrote:Cylaw, one more question for you.
For venue, do we go through each claim and make sure there is proper venue, or do we look at the suit generally? Does this make sense?
Up until this point, I have been looking at each CLAIM, and asking if there is SMJ, PJ, and Venue, is this right?
Thanks man!


Our professor covered Venue in the first semester and joinder/counterclaims/etc in the second semester, so we never encountered this. However, based on my understanding of venue, it is determined based on the initial plaintiff/defendant. Any joined parties (counterclaims, impleaders, crossclaims, interventions, etc) will not be part of the venue analysis.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: thisyearsgirl and 3 guests