BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Good Guy Gaud]

MBE Refresher lectures, at least civ pro and con law, are a waste of time.

HTH

ETA: For clarity, I am NOT talking about the mini review lectures that you can pay extra for

[kykiske]

Dumb question:

Say a third party is properly impleaded in a diversity case. Can the third party sue the underlying plaintiff (for something arising out of the same T/O) even if the third party and plaintiff are citizens of the same state? That is, the limitation for supplemental jurisdiction only applies to claims brought by the underlying plaintiff, right?

Yea

On a related note, let's say P is a Florida citizen. P sues D for negligence. D is a citizen of New York. D impleads X, alleging that X must indemnify D for the alleged negligence. X is also a citizen of New York.

X has a breach of contract claim against D on an unrelated contract. Can the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over X's breach of contract claim?

[Good Guy Gaud]

Dumb question:

Say a third party is properly impleaded in a diversity case. Can the third party sue the underlying plaintiff (for something arising out of the same T/O) even if the third party and plaintiff are citizens of the same state? That is, the limitation for supplemental jurisdiction only applies to claims brought by the underlying plaintiff, right?

Yea

On a related note, let's say P is a Florida citizen. P sues D for negligence. D is a citizen of New York. D impleads X, alleging that X must indemnify D for the alleged negligence. X is also a citizen of New York.

X has a breach of contract claim against D on an unrelated contract. Can the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over X's breach of contract claim?

If it's unrelated, the court will have to have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. So, no, if it's a contract claim.

(I'm not 100% on that)

[kyle010723]

Dumb question:

Say a third party is properly impleaded in a diversity case. Can the third party sue the underlying plaintiff (for something arising out of the same T/O) even if the third party and plaintiff are citizens of the same state? That is, the limitation for supplemental jurisdiction only applies to claims brought by the underlying plaintiff, right?

Yea

On a related note, let's say P is a Florida citizen. P sues D for negligence. D is a citizen of New York. D impleads X, alleging that X must indemnify D for the alleged negligence. X is also a citizen of New York.

X has a breach of contract claim against D on an unrelated contract. Can the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over X's breach of contract claim?

If it's unrelated, the court will have to have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. So, no, if it's a contract claim.

(I'm not 100% on that)

I remember that the third party may counterclaim anything it wish against the party (permissive), or if it is same T/O, it must counterclaim (compulsory). The overarching rule is only Plaintiff cannot destroy diversity, everyone else can do whatever they wish. But don't quote me on it as I am merely pulling it off my memory from the abyss.

[Good Guy Gaud]

yea i've got no idea lol

[kykiske]

Dumb question:

Say a third party is properly impleaded in a diversity case. Can the third party sue the underlying plaintiff (for something arising out of the same T/O) even if the third party and plaintiff are citizens of the same state? That is, the limitation for supplemental jurisdiction only applies to claims brought by the underlying plaintiff, right?

Yea

On a related note, let's say P is a Florida citizen. P sues D for negligence. D is a citizen of New York. D impleads X, alleging that X must indemnify D for the alleged negligence. X is also a citizen of New York.

X has a breach of contract claim against D on an unrelated contract. Can the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over X's breach of contract claim?

If it's unrelated, the court will have to have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. So, no, if it's a contract claim.

(I'm not 100% on that)

I remember that the third party may counterclaim anything it wish against the party (permissive), or if it is same T/O, it must counterclaim (compulsory). The overarching rule is only Plaintiff cannot destroy diversity, everyone else can do whatever they wish. But don't quote me on it as I am merely pulling it off my memory from the abyss.

But if the permissive counterclaim does not invoke either diversity or FQ jurisdiction, does supplemental jurisdiction allow subject matter jurisdiction over the unrelated permissive counterclaim?

[kyle010723]

So THE BIG BOOK (civ pro pg. 61-Non-Indemnity or Non-Contribution Claims) said "if these other claims cannot invoke diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction, they would also need to invoke supplemental jurisdiction."

So I guess they do need to stand on independent grounds. But this was talking about third party plaintiff may join other claims against third-party defendant. I would think a third party defendant is just treated as an ordinary defendant against an ordinary plaintiff. So whatever counterclaim rule is applicable.

[BVest]

Rule 14(a)(2)(B) TPD ... must assert any counterclaim against the TPP under 13(a) [compulsory counterclaims], and may assert any counterclaim against the TPP under rule 13(b) [permissive counterclaims]. [ETA: But yeah, you have to have SMJ in addition to proper joinder, so if not diverse and not compulsory, you'll want to look at that too. It's hard to imagine a case where you'd have supp jdxn on an unrelated K claim, but I guess it's possible.]

And in answer to the question above about TPP -> original P:
Rule 14(a)(2)(D) TPD . . . may also assert against the P any claim arising out of the T/O that is the subject matter of P's claim against TPP.

[kykiske]

So THE BIG BOOK (civ pro pg. 61-Non-Indemnity or Non-Contribution Claims) said "if these other claims cannot invoke diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction, they would also need to invoke supplemental jurisdiction."

So I guess they do need to stand on independent grounds. But this was talking about third party plaintiff may join other claims against third-party defendant. I would think a third party defendant is just treated as an ordinary defendant against an ordinary plaintiff. So whatever counterclaim rule is applicable.

So, it's possible that the third-party claim could join any claim against the third-party defendant, even those that do not have independent subject matter jurisdiction grounds under supplemental jurisdiction rules; but the third-party defendant must establish independent grounds for subject matter jurisdiction over claims that it brings against the third-party plaintiff?

[musicfor18]

Dumb question:

Say a third party is properly impleaded in a diversity case. Can the third party sue the underlying plaintiff (for something arising out of the same T/O) even if the third party and plaintiff are citizens of the same state? That is, the limitation for supplemental jurisdiction only applies to claims brought by the underlying plaintiff, right?

Yea

On a related note, let's say P is a Florida citizen. P sues D for negligence. D is a citizen of New York. D impleads X, alleging that X must indemnify D for the alleged negligence. X is also a citizen of New York.

X has a breach of contract claim against D on an unrelated contract. Can the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over X's breach of contract claim?

If it's unrelated, the court will have to have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. So, no, if it's a contract claim.

(I'm not 100% on that)

I remember that the third party may counterclaim anything it wish against the party (permissive), or if it is same T/O, it must counterclaim (compulsory). The overarching rule is only Plaintiff cannot destroy diversity, everyone else can do whatever they wish. But don't quote me on it as I am merely pulling it off my memory from the abyss.

But if the permissive counterclaim does not invoke either diversity or FQ jurisdiction, does supplemental jurisdiction allow subject matter jurisdiction over the unrelated permissive counterclaim?

There always has to be a basis for SMJ (or supp) for every single claim asserted by anyone against anyone.

Yes, the TPD can assert this as a permissive counterclaim, but there still needs to be SMJ over that claim. So, if there's no complete diversity, and no FQ, then you need to look at supplemental jurisdiction. If the claim doesn't arise out of a CNOF as the underlying claim, then you're out of luck. Note that it's possible for a claim not to arise out of the same T/O but still be part of the same CNOF, but who knows what kind of claims would actually fill that gap. Probably claims that arise from the same piece of property.

[kyle010723]

There always has to be a basis for SMJ (or supp) for every single claim asserted by anyone against anyone.

Yes, the TPD can assert this as a permissive counterclaim, but there still needs to be SMJ over that claim. So, if there's no complete diversity, and no FQ, then you need to look at supplemental jurisdiction. If the claim doesn't arise out of a CNOF as the underlying claim, then you're out of luck. Note that it's possible for a claim not to arise out of the same T/O but still be part of the same CNOF, but who knows what kind of claims would actually fill that gap. Probably claims that arise from the same piece of property.

I think this is correct. If we treat TPD and TPP as just ordinary P and D. A permissive counter claim must have independent jurisdiction basis.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Woo!

we figured something out

[kyle010723]

Woo!

we figured something out

haha, can we go back to the regularly scheduled complain about Barbri now?

[Good Guy Gaud]

Woo!

we figured something out

haha, can we go back to the regularly scheduled complain about Barbri now?

YES

[musicfor18]

Woo!

we figured something out

haha, can we go back to the regularly scheduled complain about Barbri now?

YES

Barbri's teaching of state subjects is such a flame compared to all the tools it provides for the MBE subjects. The lectures are not comprehensive, and the assessment quizzes are a joke.

Also, here's how Barbri explains final review:

"FINAL REVIEW
The Final Review is designed to have you review the law quickly and work additional questions and essays. During the final review you will cycle through all subjects and practice outlining additional essays and answering additional MPQ questions. The most important component of the final review is the substantive law review, memorization, and essay/question practice."

What??? Paraphrase: "Final Review consists of X, Y, and Z. The most important components of the Final Review are X, Y, and Z."

[Neff]

Woo!

we figured something out

haha, can we go back to the regularly scheduled complain about Barbri now?

YES

Barbri's teaching of state subjects is such a flame compared to all the tools it provides for the MBE subjects. The lectures are not comprehensive, and the assessment quizzes are a joke.

True, but think of it another way. If their state materials were more comprehensive, it would actually be bad for us because more people would be prepared and the standards for passing would be higher. Right now, no one really knows what the f they are doing and so most good faith attempts will be passing. Just imagine if Barbri's state materials were as comprehensive as MBE stuff, we'd all be freaking out about the amount of work, etc, etc. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

[ArmyOfficer]

Does anyone else get the impression that the essays are information dumps?

In my jurisdiction, the BLE has released sample essay answers, which Barbri has provided to us. It seems like what they are looking for is information dumps and in many cases they are not even really responsive to the questions asked.

[kmp127]

Concerning Texas and the "Trusts or Guardianship" essay:

What are the odds on favorite? Has it been guardianship the last three years? I think Johanson said so but I'm unsure if that included whatever was tested in February 2015 or not.

Feb was guardianship. See Question 11.

http://www.ble.state.tx.us/pdfs/Past%20 ... Feb_PM.pdf

Doing TX procedure all day today and about half of the questions are easy gimmes, but the other half require knowing something really particular that isn't intuitive from knowing fed civ or crim pro. struggled... but thinking ok, at worst i'll get 5% knocked out. i think I can deal with that.

I even paid barbri for that extra procedure lecture (SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not worth it)

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Am I missing something or is the NY practice handout way too detailed? (its 89 pages)

The handout is insanely specific with many many details that seem to be unnecessary for the essays
in any case, there is no way I can memorize all of this stuff and the practice questions are like "Was there PJ?" "Was the court correct in granting the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim?"

[Good Guy Gaud]

Watching these lectures at 1.5x is so credited.

[kyle010723]

Watching these lectures at 1.5x is so credited.

2x is also manageable depends on the lecturer.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Watching these lectures at 1.5x is so credited.

2x is also manageable depends on the lecturer.

Doesn't seem possible with Sambito. She is awful. Everything is "X is the best, most correct answer choice."

MOST CORRECT omg

[kyle010723]

Watching these lectures at 1.5x is so credited.

2x is also manageable depends on the lecturer.

Doesn't seem possible with Sambito. She is awful. Everything is "X is the best, most correct answer choice."

MOST CORRECT omg

Don't think I have Sambito, but Guzman was quite entertaining at 2x.

[3|ink]

Watched every video at 2x. It was never a problem. Just gotta use the PDF lecture handouts instead of the written ones.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Sambito is one of the refresher lecturers (first time I've seen her). She does contracts, crim, and con law and it is bad.