Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:56 pm
Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=248182
1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 Dannapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?
It is helpful if you think of WHY there is no supplemental jurisdiction over claims by P against third party D. If P and third party D are both from state A, then we can assume that P avoided originally joining third party D because there would have been NO diversity. So the court forces P to have independent diversity over any claims he wants to bring against third party D.gr8scOtt! wrote:Thanks!zor wrote:I'm pretty sure that's right. 3rd P Def can be from whatever state and the claims against it by the original defendant/third-party plaintiff will have supplemental jurisdiction.gr8scOtt! wrote:I just want to see if I've got this right, if someone can confirm?
Federal Civ Pro Impleader, when original claim based on DJ
Plaintiff (State A) sues Defendant/3rd Party Plaintiff (State B). 3rd Party Plaintiff impleads 3rd Party Defendant (State ???)
Can the 3rd Party Defendant be from whatever state, including State B? And so long as DJ is met between Plaintiff and 3rd Party Defendant, Plaintiff can a claim against 3rd Party Defendant.
There is no supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiff against 3rd party defendant. This means there has to be independent diversity jurisdiction, as if it were its own new lawsuit. So yes, as long as DJ is met between Plaintiff and 3rd P Def, Plaintiff can file a claim.
what about 1 P against 2+ D's?Pleasye wrote:1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 Dannapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Nope, P must meet AIC for each Dpaulshortys10 wrote:what about 1 P against 2+ D's?Pleasye wrote:1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 Dannapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
No, each claim against an individual D must be > $75K.paulshortys10 wrote:what about 1 P against 2+ D's?Pleasye wrote:1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 Dannapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Try a different browser. That happened to me often on IE so I'd switch to firefoxConfused7 wrote:Crap, my browser is not letting me do 2X speed for today's lectures. I can't fast forward at all. Not sure why this is happening since it's worked all this time. UGHHHH
So I actually think both of these are right as Themis thinks.chipperjones wrote:Can anyone verify that the answers Themis considers "correct" for the following questions from the MBE Simulated 200 Question test, are actually incorrect?
You can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if you're a close family member even if you're not in the zone of danger. however, you still need to actually witness the accident. Merely hearing about it later and having emotional distress is not sufficientPickled wrote:Can somebody please explain this to me?
A telephone company was removing wooden utility poles on a residential street and replacing them with new steel poles. The old poles were approximately 25 feet tall, and weighed several tons each. One morning, telephone company employees were removing an old pole. As a 10-year-old boy walked past the construction site, the old utility pole fell and crushed him to death. When the news was conveyed to the boy’s mother, who was at work several miles away, she immediately fainted. For the next 48 hours, the mother was unable to function due to shock over the event. In the following months, the mother had difficulty sleeping due to nightmares as a result of the incident. The mother sued the telephone company for negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from her son’s death. She produced evidence at trial conclusively establishing that the telephone company was negligent in allowing the old utility pole to fall. The applicable jurisdiction has abandoned the zone of danger requirement for this type of action. Which party is likely to prevail?
Answer Choices:
The mother, because she was closely related to the boy.
The mother, because she suffered severe emotional distress.
The telephone company, because the mother was not present at the scene of the accident.
The telephone company, because its actions were not extreme and outrageous.
Correct Answer:
The telephone company, because the mother was not present at the scene of the accident.
If I'm reading the same question (#144 on the simulated MBE), the 1st or 2nd sentence says that she has a stroke a YEAR after the owner dies. But a few sentences later, the question says that "shortly after" the owner's death, the wife allowed the guy to stay in the place. This implies that she gave him consent to do stay in the house BEFORE she got the stroke.chipperjones wrote:ImNoScar, thanks for responding. I beg to differ.
This may be nit picky but you aren't aggregating claims with multiple Ps and one D. You are looking for one P to meet the AIC as to the D. Then, the other Ps have supplemental jurisdiction which requires the "common nucleus of fact" test.Pleasye wrote:1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 Dannapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
^ Correct, adverse possession began before incapacity so the time continues to run.Confused7 wrote:If I'm reading the same question (#144 on the simulated MBE), the 1st or 2nd sentence says that she has a stroke a YEAR after the owner dies. But a few sentences later, the question says that "shortly after" the owner's death, the wife allowed the guy to stay in the place. This implies that she gave him consent to do stay in the house BEFORE she got the stroke.chipperjones wrote:ImNoScar, thanks for responding. I beg to differ.
You're correct but also nitpickingsmalogna wrote:This may be nit picky but you aren't aggregating claims with multiple Ps and one D. You are looking for one P to meet the AIC as to the D. Then, the other Ps have supplemental jurisdiction which requires the "common nucleus of fact" test.Pleasye wrote:1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 Dannapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Examples:
If one P has a tort claim with $85,000 in damages against D, and another P has say an unrelated contracts claim for $10K (yes, unlikely) then no jurisdiction.
If one P has a tort claim for $40K and another P has a tort claim for $40K under same facts against same D, no jurisdiction.
If one P has 76K tort claim and another P has $10K tort claim from same facts, jurisdiction.
Feel free to correct me but I'm 95% sure this is right
Not to your point, but I wouldn't be surprised if the lower second score is due to overall exam fatigue.californiabarprep wrote:How accurate/representative is the Themis simulated MBE set? I see that the average score was pretty low for both (64/60) AM and PM. I think Themis uses a lot of their own questions rather than NCBE?
Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?
I just finished it and my brain doesn't work. What was it?zot1 wrote:Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?
Themis said 110-120 raw score, I think.UnamSanctam wrote:I just finished it and my brain doesn't work. What was it?zot1 wrote:Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?
Lol I know the feeling! It was something Iike 110-120, but I've been drinking a lot since. How did it go for you?UnamSanctam wrote:I just finished it and my brain doesn't work. What was it?zot1 wrote:Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?