Top Law Schools

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?

Supplemental jurisdiction would cover the counterclaims by defendant.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.