BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:47 pm

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
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:53 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
3|ink wrote: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?

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:55 pm

kykiske wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
3|ink wrote: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
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:59 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kykiske wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
3|ink wrote: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.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:01 pm

yea i've got no idea lol

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:04 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kykiske wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
3|ink wrote: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
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:08 pm

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.

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5680
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby BVest » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:10 pm

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.
Last edited by BVest on Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:12 pm

kyle010723 wrote: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
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:13 pm

kykiske wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kykiske wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
3|ink wrote: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
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:17 pm

musicfor18 wrote: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.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:19 pm

Woo!

we figured something out

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:20 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:Woo!

we figured something out


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

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:20 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:Woo!

we figured something out


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


YES

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:35 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote: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
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:29 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Neff » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:45 pm

musicfor18 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote: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
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby ArmyOfficer » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:00 pm

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
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kmp127 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:31 pm

BVest wrote:
jamescastle wrote: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
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:42 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Hutz_and_Goodman » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:32 pm

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?"

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:40 pm

Watching these lectures at 1.5x is so credited.

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:41 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:Watching these lectures at 1.5x is so credited.


2x is also manageable depends on the lecturer.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:43 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote: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
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:44 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote: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.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby 3|ink » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:46 pm

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

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:46 pm

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




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests