Civ Pro Joinder Q Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Civ Pro Joinder Q

Post by estefanchanning » Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:38 pm

A developer contracted with a general contractor to build an office building, and completion of the building was two years late. The developer filed a breach of contract action in federal district court against the general contractor, seeking damages caused by the delay. The developer is a citizen of State A, and the general contractor is a citizen of State B. The general contractor filed a third-party claim against a major subcontractor, claiming that the subcontractor caused any delay and should be liable to the general contractor for anything the general contractor has to pay the developer. The subcontractor believes that the developer interfered with the subcontract and that the developer’s interference caused not only the delay but also substantial cost overruns for the subcontractor. Like the developer, the subcontractor is a citizen of State A.

May the subcontractor assert and maintain a claim against the developer in the pending action seeking payment for the cost overruns?


A] No, because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the subcontractor’s claim since the subcontractor and the developer are citizens of the same state and the claim does not arise under federal law.
B] No, because the subcontractor is a third-party defendant and may not assert claims against the original plaintiff.
C] Yes, because the subcontractor’s claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s original claim, and the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.
D] Yes, because the subcontractor’s claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the other claims in the action, so it is a compulsory claim that the subcontractor may assert only in the pending action and therefore is within the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Answer:
[+] Spoiler
The subcontractor may assert and maintain a claim against the developer in the pending action. A third-party defendant is allowed to assert a claim against the plaintiff only if the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim, which is the situation here. (B) is therefore incorrect. (A) is incorrect because such claims by nonplaintiffs automatically fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, since the plaintiff’s claim and the third-party defendant’s claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. (D) is incorrect because a third-party defendant’s claim against the plaintiff is not compulsory.
I chose A. Can someone explain why the ct has supplemental jurisdiction if diversity is not met? the subcontractor and developer are both state A citizens.

tiffannybrown

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 6:05 pm

Re: Civ Pro Joinder Q

Post by tiffannybrown » Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:29 pm

The Federal Ct doesn't need to have SJM over supplemental claims.

In order for a Fed Court to have supplemental Jurisdiction over a claim, the claim must:

1. Be from the same transaction/occurence +
2. Not be included in the limitation (plaintiffs in diversity cases- cannot add claims if they destroy diversity.)

Here this claim is the claim of a TP not the plaintiff (so the limitation doesn't exist), so as long as it its from the same t/o the ct has supp jurisdiction over it.

Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”