CivPro Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
#NotACop
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:00 am

CivPro Question

Postby #NotACop » Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:49 pm

I have my CivPro exam soon, so if anyone has any quick advice I would appreciate it greatly.

I've been looking at practice exam questions and keep coming across questions that have two claims against two different defendants that come up from the same event. D1 has a claim for 100k, and D2 has one for 50k. Assuming both defendants are diverse from the plaintiff, can you bring D2 in with D1 under supplemental jurisdiction. Or does supplement jurisdiction only deal with multiple claims against the same defendant?
Also, my CivPro class is a full year and we haven't done anything with joinder (which I assume might be an issue in that fact pattern.)

User avatar
jingosaur
Posts: 2197
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:33 am

Re: CivPro Question

Postby jingosaur » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:12 pm

#NotACop wrote:I have my CivPro exam soon, so if anyone has any quick advice I would appreciate it greatly.

I've been looking at practice exam questions and keep coming across questions that have two claims against two different defendants that come up from the same event. D1 has a claim for 100k, and D2 has one for 50k. Assuming both defendants are diverse from the plaintiff, can you bring D2 in with D1 under supplemental jurisdiction. Or does supplement jurisdiction only deal with multiple claims against the same defendant?
Also, my CivPro class is a full year and we haven't done anything with joinder (which I assume might be an issue in that fact pattern.)


Do you mean that Plaintiff is making a claim against D1 for 100k and one against D2 for 50k? If that's the question, then you have to do the Gibbs test to make sure the two claims are "so related", 1367(a), and then if the source of original jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, if D2 was joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24, then there is no supplemental jurisdiction, 1367(b), because the amount in controversy will not be met and the claim against D2 would needs its own original basis for jurisdiction. Then you should talk about how the court has the power to exercise discretion to not append the claim under 1367(c).

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: CivPro Question

Postby ScottRiqui » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:32 pm

jingosaur wrote:
#NotACop wrote:I have my CivPro exam soon, so if anyone has any quick advice I would appreciate it greatly.

I've been looking at practice exam questions and keep coming across questions that have two claims against two different defendants that come up from the same event. D1 has a claim for 100k, and D2 has one for 50k. Assuming both defendants are diverse from the plaintiff, can you bring D2 in with D1 under supplemental jurisdiction. Or does supplement jurisdiction only deal with multiple claims against the same defendant?
Also, my CivPro class is a full year and we haven't done anything with joinder (which I assume might be an issue in that fact pattern.)


Do you mean that Plaintiff is making a claim against D1 for 100k and one against D2 for 50k? If that's the question, then you have to do the Gibbs test to make sure the two claims are "so related", 1367(a), and then if the source of original jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, if D2 was joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24, then there is no supplemental jurisdiction, 1367(b), because the amount in controversy will not be met and the claim against D2 would needs its own original basis for jurisdiction. Then you should talk about how the court has the power to exercise discretion to not append the claim under 1367(c).


Regarding the lack of SMJ if defendant was joined under Rules 14, 19, 20 or 24, § 1367 says that there's no supplemental jurisdiction if such jurisdiction would be inconsistent with diversity. If the claim against the second diverse defendant were over $75k instead of only $50k, couldn't the court exercise SJ even if D2 were brought in under one of those four rules? That wouldn't seem inconsistent with the § 1322 diversity requirements.

Also, you can aggregate multiple claims by one plaintiff against several defendants to meet the $75k threshold, **if the defendants are jointly liable**. Middle Tennessee News Co., Inc. v. Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., 250 F.3d 1077, 1081 (7th Cir. 2001). If the defendants are only severally liable, each claim would still have to meet the threshold, though.

In short, I think you could add D2 under any Rule as long as D2 would be jointly liable with D1, because it wouldn't destroy diversity, and you can aggregate the claims to meet the AIC threshold.

User avatar
jingosaur
Posts: 2197
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:33 am

Re: CivPro Question

Postby jingosaur » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:38 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:
jingosaur wrote:
#NotACop wrote:I have my CivPro exam soon, so if anyone has any quick advice I would appreciate it greatly.

I've been looking at practice exam questions and keep coming across questions that have two claims against two different defendants that come up from the same event. D1 has a claim for 100k, and D2 has one for 50k. Assuming both defendants are diverse from the plaintiff, can you bring D2 in with D1 under supplemental jurisdiction. Or does supplement jurisdiction only deal with multiple claims against the same defendant?
Also, my CivPro class is a full year and we haven't done anything with joinder (which I assume might be an issue in that fact pattern.)


Do you mean that Plaintiff is making a claim against D1 for 100k and one against D2 for 50k? If that's the question, then you have to do the Gibbs test to make sure the two claims are "so related", 1367(a), and then if the source of original jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, if D2 was joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24, then there is no supplemental jurisdiction, 1367(b), because the amount in controversy will not be met and the claim against D2 would needs its own original basis for jurisdiction. Then you should talk about how the court has the power to exercise discretion to not append the claim under 1367(c).


Regarding the lack of SMJ if defendant was joined under Rules 14, 19, 20 or 24, § 1367 says that there's no supplemental jurisdiction if such jurisdiction would be inconsistent with diversity. If the claim against the second diverse defendant were over $75k instead of only $50k, couldn't the court exercise SJ even if D2 were brought in under one of those four rules? That wouldn't seem inconsistent with the § 1322 diversity requirements.

Also, you can aggregate multiple claims by one plaintiff against several defendants to meet the $75k threshold, **if the defendants are jointly liable**. Middle Tennessee News Co., Inc. v. Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., 250 F.3d 1077, 1081 (7th Cir. 2001). If the defendants are only severally liable, each claim would still have to meet the threshold, though.

In short, I think you could add D2 under any Rule as long as D2 would be jointly liable with D1, because it wouldn't destroy diversity, and you can aggregate the claims to meet the AIC threshold.


The amounts could be added together if the claims were "single and indivisible" but that's a substantive law question that my prof refused to go over.

If D2's AIC was over $75,000, there wouldn't be supplemental jx. It would just have diversity jx on its own. Supplemental jx only addresses claims that would not ordinarily have original jurisdiction in federal district court.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: CivPro Question

Postby ScottRiqui » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:47 pm

jingosaur wrote:The amounts could be added together if the claims were "single and indivisible" but that's a substantive law question that my prof refused to go over.


Gotcha. The "single and indivisible" phrase sounds like it might be serving the same purpose as "the defendants would be jointly liable", which is the way I've heard the exception worded. We didn't cover that in class either; I just saw it in the Freer videos.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: CivPro Question

Postby Attax » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:17 pm

We didn't learn the Gibbs test. So it seems as though you're right here Scott.

If the main claim gets SMJ via DJ then there's no suppJ permitted for claims made against persons brought in as D's under rule 14 (third party D's), 19 (required joinder), 20 (permissive joinder), or 24 (intervenors) if it would destroy DJ

User avatar
jingosaur
Posts: 2197
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:33 am

Re: CivPro Question

Postby jingosaur » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:26 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:
jingosaur wrote:The amounts could be added together if the claims were "single and indivisible" but that's a substantive law question that my prof refused to go over.


Gotcha. The "single and indivisible" phrase sounds like it might be serving the same purpose as "the defendants would be jointly liable", which is the way I've heard the exception worded. We didn't cover that in class either; I just saw it in the Freer videos.


"Single and indivisible" isn't the same as the Gibbs test. Like claims arising out of the same mass tort usually pass the Gibbs test, but aren't single and indivisible.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: CivPro Question

Postby Attax » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:26 pm

We didn't learn the Gibbs test, so can't really consider it in the analysis for our class at least.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: CivPro Question

Postby ScottRiqui » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:45 pm

jingosaur wrote:
ScottRiqui wrote:
jingosaur wrote:The amounts could be added together if the claims were "single and indivisible" but that's a substantive law question that my prof refused to go over.


Gotcha. The "single and indivisible" phrase sounds like it might be serving the same purpose as "the defendants would be jointly liable", which is the way I've heard the exception worded. We didn't cover that in class either; I just saw it in the Freer videos.


"Single and indivisible" isn't the same as the Gibbs test. Like claims arising out of the same mass tort usually pass the Gibbs test, but aren't single and indivisible.


No, I didn't think it was the same as the Gibbs test. I'm thinking that multiple claims that are considered "single and indivisible" are probably going to be the types of claims for which the multiple defendants are going to be held jointly liable. So, "single and indivisible claims" == "defendants are jointly liable" == you can aggregate the multiple claims to meet the AIC threshold; the claims don't have to meet it individually.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AquafiNa, BuddyHoller, Google Feedfetcher, sam91 and 6 guests