FRCP 13(a) exceptions HYPO FUN!

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

FRCP 13(a) exceptions HYPO FUN!

Postby brickman » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:48 pm

Can anyone think of a scenario concerning this exception:

does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

in which the counter claim would not have to be brought.

All I've come up with so far is that the counterclaim would be against a party with a limited pot of money and who is in a bad financial position and so wouldn't be able to pay out to both parties. But the R 19 party couldn't be joined because the court wouldn't have PJ over him (maybe he lives out of state or on the boarder or something)...but i can't think of a factual scenario that makes this work.

have fun!

User avatar
vertex
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: FRCP 13(a) exceptions HYPO FUN!

Postby vertex » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:45 pm

brickman wrote:Can anyone think of a scenario concerning this exception:

does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

in which the counter claim would not have to be brought.

All I've come up with so far is that the counterclaim would be against a party with a limited pot of money and who is in a bad financial position and so wouldn't be able to pay out to both parties. But the R 19 party couldn't be joined because the court wouldn't have PJ over him (maybe he lives out of state or on the boarder or something)...but i can't think of a factual scenario that makes this work.

have fun!


An example illustrating your scenario: A, B, and C are in a car accident. All parties are injured. A brings suit against B in federal court under diversity. Ordinarily, B has to counterclaim against A for his injuries since it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, but since A is judgment proof, B wouldn't be able to get complete relief [19(a)(1)(A)] without joining C. However, joining C would destroy complete diversity. Therefore, B does not have to counterclaim against A, i.e. it is not a compulsory counterclaim anymore since joining C is not feasible.

Note that issues that are not implicated: 19(b) indispensable parties is irrelevant to this situation: there is no talk about dismissing the case for not being able to join C. Not being able to join C is only relevant to whether B's counterclaim against A is compulsory or permissive.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests