Br3v wrote:Say suit in Texas Fed Dist Ct. between a Californian and New Yorker about a claim that all took place in Tx, but imagine something weird where its not for sure whether TX law or some other state would apply. A Tx State Ct would have to decide whether to apply Tx law or the other state, and thus a Fed Dist Ct would have to guess what law the Tx State court would apply.
Now assume the Tx law would clearly give way to the Fed practice, but the other state law would win out over the Fed practice. Therefore when it comes to balancing whether to apply Fed or St law, it is going to make a big difference as to what State law you pick right?
I see what you mean, with Byrd here. However, a) under Bernhardt they could just wait for the state law to control b) the FRCP/28 USC prong of Erie is done at this point. If I get this we're already at Byrd right? So we're kind of doing vertical (no FRCP/28 USC directly on point) --> horizontal (which state) ---> vertical again (Byrd balancing).
This sounds like an exam question or something.
desiballa21 wrote:P (NY) sues D (NJ) in fed court (diversity). D files a 3rd party complaint against insurance company (DE and NY). Insurance company files 12B2 lack of personal jurisdiction... should it be denied or granted or is there insufficient information to determine?
Not enough information. Where is the fed court?
desiballa21 wrote: Also; Klaxon says follow the forum state's choice of law rules, right? If there's a conflict b/w NY and NJ law in federal court and court is in NJ, Klaxon doesn't say follow NJ automatically.. it says look to NJ's choice of law rules THEN follow that. Or am I wrong?
If I'm sure of anything in law school or life, it is that you are super correct.
lhanvt13 wrote: BPLawl wrote:
isn't it that if a Permissive Joinder (20) doesn't work that we have to see whether they are a necessary party (19a) and if 19a doesn't work we see if they're indispensable (19b)? I'm so confused and sad
Oh dude I never thought of it that way. My assumption was that they'd be like, "Hey we got to join this dude he's necessary/indispensable" (19a/19b) then "Oh wait, he's not LOLOL can you gives us permission pretty plz (20)". On your flow they'd be like "Can we have permission purty plz (20)" then if they'd got rejected they'd argue a "jk bro, this dude's really necessary". Is that right? And then if the parties start with pretty please (20), when should they then move to it's necessary (19)?
I don't know. Maybe they would make a motion with both options on it and join in the alternative?
Ah I see I guess that could be another possibility. Yeah I think we're both right. As to the bolded part, wouldn't the analysis move to 19 whenever a PJ, SMJ, or Venue issue comes up during the 20 analysis? Like, "... Therefore, the court does not have personal jurisdiction over [C] and permissive joinder would not be permitted. However, [A] could also argue that [C] is a necessary party because [necessary analysis]. If the courts deem that [C] is a necessary party, the court could either proceed or dismiss the case. The court will likely [dismiss/continue with] this case because under 19(b) [19b analysis - indispensable party]."
Does that seem right ?
I'm not sure when a 19->20 scenario would come up. Do you have an example where I would have to analyze 19 first then 20? I think if the question asks "is [C] a necessary party, we would do 19a and 19b and then stop. I don't think 20 would come in to play anywhere in the analysis under questions like that.[/quote][/quote]
The first part of your answer seems to conflict with Rule 82's statement that the FRCP does not extend or limit venue or jurisdiction. Why could you join in 19 even if PJ failed? When would PJ not fail and service of process be possible (19a1)? Much confused.
I was thinking advise A on what parties he should join- "The court should/not allow C to be joined by A. A should argue that C is a necessary party because [19a etc etc]. If C does not wish to be joined C will argue . Additionally, A will argue that C is an indispensible party because [19b]. C will argue [bla bla bla]. The court will find this argument more persuasive. However, under the more permissive joinder rules A may still be able to join C as party because of common question of law/fact.... "