1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[ilovesf]

Dear Civil Procedure... please fucking die. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm studying it now too, I feel the same.

[crossarmant]

Dear Civil Procedure... please fucking die. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm studying it now too, I feel the same.

Like I get almost enjoyment out of doing practice exams for Contracts and Torts. They're interesting and it's fun to spot issues in the questions, they make logical sense in how people should interact with each other and award relief... Civil Procedure is just a fucking shitshow of awfully constructed red tape that forms this big jumble of near contradictions and monotony. I'm eternally baffled as to how anyone would even want to pursue teaching CivPro or researching it.

[ilovesf]

Dear Civil Procedure... please fucking die. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm studying it now too, I feel the same.

Like I get almost enjoyment out of doing practice exams for Contracts and Torts. They're interesting and it's fun to spot issues in the questions, they make logical sense in how people should interact with each other and award relief... Civil Procedure is just a fucking shitshow of awfully constructed red tape that forms this big jumble of near contradictions and monotony. I'm eternally baffled as to how anyone would even want to pursue teaching CivPro or researching it.

Oh sorry.. you lost me there.

[crossarmant]

Dear Civil Procedure... please fucking die. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm studying it now too, I feel the same.

Like I get almost enjoyment out of doing practice exams for Contracts and Torts. They're interesting and it's fun to spot issues in the questions, they make logical sense in how people should interact with each other and award relief... Civil Procedure is just a fucking shitshow of awfully constructed red tape that forms this big jumble of near contradictions and monotony. I'm eternally baffled as to how anyone would even want to pursue teaching CivPro or researching it.

Oh sorry.. you lost me there.

Comparatively.

[AlexanderSupertramp]

One down.

Feeling great about Property even if I did finish an hour early. I spent that entire hour looking for another issue and there really weren't anymore. So, unless I screwed up majorly I did really well!

[istara]

Congrats! I will be thrilled if I get done with anything early and have time for so much as a read through.

[$peppercorn]

Dear Civil Procedure... please fucking die. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm studying it now too, I feel the same.

Apparently they are about to pass some law so our civ pro professor sent us an email with a ton of stuff to not worry about now. Pretty happy about that. Don't have to discuss venue at all now

[sknight323]

Just had my first exam -- civ pro. I doubt I nailed it, but I certainly got all the major issues, and spotted a few that were very difficult to see. I thought I wrote it very well -- clear, concise, and organized. Actually wrote it much better than any practice exam I had taken thus far. There were two things I didn't really go into b/c of time constraints, but it felt good to get the first one out of the way, and it felt good knowing that I at least didn't bomb it, or something. Now to teach myself contracts in 3 days. I forgot to actually learn it during the semester. Oops..

[Lasers]

One down.

Feeling great about Property even if I did finish an hour early. I spent that entire hour looking for another issue and there really weren't anymore. So, unless I screwed up majorly I did really well!

sweet.

i finished early on my prop test yesterday, but only now did i realize i missed a very nuanced issue. no A for me.

[SilverE2]

Ugh, I can't figure this out and I feel like a dumbass:

If a defendant counterclaims and asserts a federal claim against a plaintiff, can the defendant then remove the case to federal court?

I would think no, because then defendants would just file federal question counterclaims to remove a case, but I want to confirm I'm right...

[ph14]

Ugh, I can't figure this out and I feel like a dumbass:

If a defendant counterclaims and asserts a federal claim against a plaintiff, can the defendant then remove the case to federal court?

I would think no, because then defendants would just file federal question counterclaims to remove a case, but I want to confirm I'm right...

Don't think so. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), if the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction over the P's claim if they were filed in federal court.

[SilverE2]

Ugh, I can't figure this out and I feel like a dumbass:

If a defendant counterclaims and asserts a federal claim against a plaintiff, can the defendant then remove the case to federal court?

I would think no, because then defendants would just file federal question counterclaims to remove a case, but I want to confirm I'm right...

Don't think so. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), if the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction over the P's claim if they were filed in federal court.

Oh, yeah. That's right, reading 1446(a) again makes it crystal clear. It's been a long civ pro day...

[ph14]

Ugh, I can't figure this out and I feel like a dumbass:

If a defendant counterclaims and asserts a federal claim against a plaintiff, can the defendant then remove the case to federal court?

I would think no, because then defendants would just file federal question counterclaims to remove a case, but I want to confirm I'm right...

Don't think so. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), if the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction over the P's claim if they were filed in federal court.

Oh, yeah. That's right, reading 1446(a) again makes it crystal clear. It's been a long civ pro day...

No worries. I'm glad you asked because I had to look it up so now I can add it into my outline.

[ilovesf]

this just reminds me that I don't understand anything about civ pro.

[ph14]

this just reminds me that I don't understand anything about civ pro.

As long as you drop "same transaction and occurrence" at least 5-10 times you will at least get a B+

[AlexanderSupertramp]

I need to start looking at Civil Procedure. But I don't really want to after being all Property all the time today. Our test is Monday. The class is two credit hours this semester so there isn't much material that it could be. I'm thinking personal jurisdiction esp. stream of commerce/removal for the essay.

I just talked to a few of my classmates and they all got the same issues that I did minus one which I picked out and none of them did. Nobody got anything I hadn't so that's making me feel better too.

[TheFutureLawyer]

this just reminds me that I don't understand anything about civ pro.

studying civ pro. swear to god that time is slowing down, and there still doesn't seem to be enough time for me to memorize all these fucking rules.

[crossarmant]

Ugh, I can't figure this out and I feel like a dumbass:

If a defendant counterclaims and asserts a federal claim against a plaintiff, can the defendant then remove the case to federal court?

I would think no, because then defendants would just file federal question counterclaims to remove a case, but I want to confirm I'm right...

Don't think so. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), if the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction over the P's claim if they were filed in federal court.

Now how does this work if such an assertion is a compulsory counterclaim? Fed courts have exclusive JDX over FQ issues, wouldn't that allow for removal?

[ilovesf]

Ugh, I can't figure this out and I feel like a dumbass:

If a defendant counterclaims and asserts a federal claim against a plaintiff, can the defendant then remove the case to federal court?

I would think no, because then defendants would just file federal question counterclaims to remove a case, but I want to confirm I'm right...

Don't think so. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), if the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction over the P's claim if they were filed in federal court.

Now how does this work if such an assertion is a compulsory counterclaim? Fed courts have exclusive JDX over FQ issues, wouldn't that allow for removal?

This is just what I was looking up in my E&E about Rule 13(I haven't found an answer yet)

[ph14]

Ugh, I can't figure this out and I feel like a dumbass:

If a defendant counterclaims and asserts a federal claim against a plaintiff, can the defendant then remove the case to federal court?

I would think no, because then defendants would just file federal question counterclaims to remove a case, but I want to confirm I'm right...

Don't think so. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), if the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction over the P's claim if they were filed in federal court.

Now how does this work if such an assertion is a compulsory counterclaim? Fed courts have exclusive JDX over FQ issues, wouldn't that allow for removal?

Fed courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain special actions (patents, etc.). Federal and state courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over a federal question case.

So I think (correct me if i'm wrong), what you are asking is how would this would if a plaintiff sued a defendant for a state law claim, and the defendant asserted a compulsory counterclaim with a cause of action under which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

I have no idea how that would work out. My only thought really is that under the Grable 3 part test to see if a state law claim can have federal question jurisdiction, then you would probably have federal jurisdiction under that test if the counterclaim is compulsory.

[ilovesf]

My 2L friend sent me this link: http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/14

"For instance, “[t]he well-pleaded complaint rule applies to the original jurisdiction of the district courts as well as to their removal jurisdiction.”/152/ Thus, a defendant may not remove based on their federal defenses or a federal counterclaim./153/"

[ph14]

My 2L friend sent me this link: http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/14

"For instance, “[t]he well-pleaded complaint rule applies to the original jurisdiction of the district courts as well as to their removal jurisdiction.”/152/ Thus, a defendant may not remove based on their federal defenses or a federal counterclaim./153/"

Good find!

[crossarmant]

Now how does this work if such an assertion is a compulsory counterclaim? Fed courts have exclusive JDX over FQ issues, wouldn't that allow for removal?

Fed courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain special actions (patents, etc.). Federal and state courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over a federal question case.

So I think (correct me if i'm wrong), what you are asking is how would this would if a plaintiff sued a defendant for a state law claim, and the defendant asserted a compulsory counterclaim with a cause of action under which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

I have no idea how that would work out. My only thought really is that under the Grable 3 part test to see if a state law claim can have federal question jurisdiction, then you would probably have federal jurisdiction under that test if the counterclaim is compulsory.

PH, god of CivPro, yeah, Grabel case. I had forgotten about this one.

Edit: Wait, going over it now it doesn't seem quite right. The Fed issue in Grabel is in the cause of action, as well as a defense. What if a suit is based on a mere breach of contract, but say someone counterclaims with a federal question as a matter of law, can they remove to federal court? I didn't think that state court has concurrent JDX over FQ issues... maybe I'm wrong, CivPro is my shaky class.

[ilovesf]

Now how does this work if such an assertion is a compulsory counterclaim? Fed courts have exclusive JDX over FQ issues, wouldn't that allow for removal?

Fed courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain special actions (patents, etc.). Federal and state courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over a federal question case.

So I think (correct me if i'm wrong), what you are asking is how would this would if a plaintiff sued a defendant for a state law claim, and the defendant asserted a compulsory counterclaim with a cause of action under which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

I have no idea how that would work out. My only thought really is that under the Grable 3 part test to see if a state law claim can have federal question jurisdiction, then you would probably have federal jurisdiction under that test if the counterclaim is compulsory.

PH, god of CivPro, yeah, Grabel case. I had forgotten about this one.

Edit: Wait, going over it now it doesn't seem quite right. The Fed issue in Grabel is in the cause of action, as well as a defense. What if a suit is based on a mere breach of contract, but say someone counterclaims with a federal question as a matter of law, can they remove to federal court? I didn't think that state court has concurrent JDX over FQ issues... maybe I'm wrong, CivPro is my shaky class.

Look at my link - you can't.

[dabomb75]

Now how does this work if such an assertion is a compulsory counterclaim? Fed courts have exclusive JDX over FQ issues, wouldn't that allow for removal?

Fed courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain special actions (patents, etc.). Federal and state courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over a federal question case.

So I think (correct me if i'm wrong), what you are asking is how would this would if a plaintiff sued a defendant for a state law claim, and the defendant asserted a compulsory counterclaim with a cause of action under which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

I have no idea how that would work out. My only thought really is that under the Grable 3 part test to see if a state law claim can have federal question jurisdiction, then you would probably have federal jurisdiction under that test if the counterclaim is compulsory.

PH, god of CivPro, yeah, Grabel case. I had forgotten about this one.

Edit: Wait, going over it now it doesn't seem quite right. The Fed issue in Grabel is in the cause of action, as well as a defense. What if a suit is based on a mere breach of contract, but say someone counterclaims with a federal question as a matter of law, can they remove to federal court? I didn't think that state court has concurrent JDX over FQ issues... maybe I'm wrong, CivPro is my shaky class.

WPC means that it has to be part of your COA as to why you filed. It can't be because of a defense you think the defense is going to bring in retaliation. In Grable, it was part of their anticipated defense, their actual COA was purely a state law one in which they were suing over a breach of contract. If someone counter-claims, there still wouldn't be original jurisdiction in this case because it's not the original complaint, so it couldn't be heard in federal court AFAIK.


I don't know why all of you hate civ pro so much. I just like to look at it as a chess match between the plaintiff and defendant, each one trying to one up the other using a different procedural rule it grabbed out of nowhere. I kinda enjoy it.