Mottley - anticipated defense

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
jjlaw
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Mottley - anticipated defense

Postby jjlaw » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:02 pm

Can someone explain the "anticipated defense" concept under the Mottley rule in SMJ? Is it when a plaintiff alleges that defendant has done something to violate a federal rule/statute/regulation?

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: Mottley - anticipated defense

Postby clintonius » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:18 pm

oh right, whoopsies. Person below got it right.
Last edited by clintonius on Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

StyrofoamWar
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: Mottley - anticipated defense

Postby StyrofoamWar » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:18 pm

The fact that a defendant will use a defense that arises under federal statute/law is not sufficient to allow the plaintiff to file a claim in federal court. Plaintiff must allege a cause of action arising under either federal question or diversity jurisdiction to get into federal court.

P sues D on a state negligence claim. D has a potential defense founded on a federal statute. This does not mean P can file in federal court.

jjlaw
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Re: Mottley - anticipated defense

Postby jjlaw » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:23 pm

Awesome, thanks!

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: Mottley - anticipated defense

Postby crossarmant » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:23 pm

StyrofoamWar wrote:The fact that a defendant will use a defense that arises under federal statute/law is not sufficient to allow the plaintiff to file a claim in federal court. Plaintiff must allege a cause of action arising under either federal question or diversity jurisdiction to get into federal court.

P sues D on a state negligence claim. D has a potential defense founded on a federal statute. This does not mean P can file in federal court.


+1

As my prof put it "Can you state how you were wronged without discussing Federal Law? If Yes, then not arising-under. If No, then it's a Federal Question."

In Mottley they could've simply stated "Louisville RR breached their contract and revoked our tickets." The Federal Question was the RR's defense, not the claim.

Where as in Smith, the claim was "The Bank wronged us by buying junk Fed bonds." They can't simply state "Hey, they wronged us," without having the Federal issue.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deadthrone7, electriklemon, Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, newhere21, TheSpanishMain and 12 guests