1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT) Forum

[FKASunny]

For ancillary jurisdiction: If A (California) files suit in federal court against B (NY), and then B impleads C (CA), and the claim was originally filed in federal court because of diversity of citizenship, can the federal court no longer hear the case? Am I making any sense at all?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=135813

B can bring in C, but A cannot lodge claims against C.

[justonemoregame]

Fellow simpletons, let's get simple.

Under the rules of joinder:

A sues B. B impleads C.

Can C bring any old claim against A under Rule 18(a), or must C first bring a Rule 14(a)(2)(D) claim arising out of the same T/O? My thinking is that Rule 18(a) requires an "opposing party," but A is not an opposing party to C because A does not have a claim against C.

[lhanvt13]

Fellow simpletons, let's get simple.

Under the rules of joinder:

A sues B. B impleads C.

Can C bring any old claim against A under Rule 18(a), or must C first bring a Rule 14(a)(2)(D) claim arising out of the same T/O? My thinking is that Rule 18(a) requires an "opposing party," but A is not an opposing party to C because A does not have a claim against C.

I think C's claims against A must be same T/O and the claim passes the SMJ test. Then 18(a) would work afterward

[lhanvt13]

I'm not quite sure when a Necessary party joinder analysis is required. Do we always do a NP joinder analysis when a permissive joinder or impleader doesn't work?

[North]

You guys know so much more about Civ Pro than I do and it worries me.

[BPLawl]

Fellow simpletons, let's get simple.

Under the rules of joinder:

A sues B. B impleads C.

Can C bring any old claim against A under Rule 18(a), or must C first bring a Rule 14(a)(2)(D) claim arising out of the same T/O? My thinking is that Rule 18(a) requires an "opposing party," but A is not an opposing party to C because A does not have a claim against C.

An important feature of Admiralty Rule 56 was that it allowed impleader not only of a person who might be liable to the defendant by way of remedy over, but also of any person who might be liable to the plaintiff. The importance of this provision was that the defendant was entitled to insist that the plaintiff proceed to judgment against the third-party defendant. In certain cases this was a valuable implementation of a substantive right. ...This feature was originally incorporated in Rule 14, but was eliminated by the amendment of 1946, so that under the amended rule a third party could not be impleaded on the basis that he might be liable to the plaintiff. ...

However, Rule 14 does not require, or even authorize, the third-party defendant to interpose any counterclaims against the original plaintiff, who is not an “opposing party”3 within the meaning of Rule 13(a) unless the plaintiff first asserts a claim directly against the third-party defendant.4 The third-party defendant may, however, advance a transactionally related claim against the original plaintiff directly as provided by Rule 14(a)(2)(D).

It seems like the intent of the Advisory Committee in '66 and '46 was to parse the third-party D from the original P so they were no longer automatically opposing parties. I think that Wright & Miller also confirm the second part of your sentence too. Good Thinking Bro! ETA: Seems like lhanvt was already on it.

I'm not quite sure when a Necessary party joinder analysis is required. Do we always do a NP joinder analysis when a permissive joinder or impleader doesn't work?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...why would you do NP analysis (19) after a failure of Rule 20 or 14? Shouldn't joining party attempt to do a R19 analysis first so that they can get the party included without any severing (42)?

Contracts/Procedure: Does anyone discuss restitution/Unjust Enrichment as part of their contracts course? When discussing specific performance, there was a hierarchy of remedies and legal remedies must be exhausted before exploring equitable remedies. I believe I saw restitution damages discussed as an equitable remedy somewhere. I know that generally if A has a claim against B for breach of a K and said K would be successful they can elect to use restitution/UE as the value of their damages. However, does this require A showing that the remedy at law (expectancy) would be an unsuitable remedy?

[lhanvt13]

You guys know so much more about Civ Pro than I do and it worries me.

no brah. we just say words hoping they're right.
This is how I feel every time

[Br3v]

This Q will make you happy then North.

In Erie Question, do we determine which St law first (horizontal Question) or do we decide Fed or St (vertical question) first?

[lhanvt13]

I'm not quite sure when a Necessary party joinder analysis is required. Do we always do a NP joinder analysis when a permissive joinder or impleader doesn't work?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...why would you do NP analysis (19) after a failure of Rule 20 or 14? Shouldn't joining party attempt to do a R19 analysis first so that they can get the party included without any severing (42)?

[/quote]isn't it that if a Permissive Joinder (20) doesn't work that we have to see whether they are a necessary party (19a) and if 19a doesn't work we see if they're indispensable (19b)? I'm so confused and sad

[BPLawl]

I'm not quite sure when a Necessary party joinder analysis is required. Do we always do a NP joinder analysis when a permissive joinder or impleader doesn't work?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...why would you do NP analysis (19) after a failure of Rule 20 or 14? Shouldn't joining party attempt to do a R19 analysis first so that they can get the party included without any severing (42)?

isn't it that if a Permissive Joinder (20) doesn't work that we have to see whether they are a necessary party (19a) and if 19a doesn't work we see if they're indispensable (19b)? I'm so confused and sad [/quote] Oh dude I never thought of it that way. My assumption was that they'd be like, "Hey we got to join this dude he's necessary/indispensable" (19a/19b) then "Oh wait, he's not LOLOL can you gives us permission pretty plz (20)". On your flow they'd be like "Can we have permission purty plz (20)" then if they'd got rejected they'd argue a "jk bro, this dude's really necessary". Is that right? And then if the parties start with pretty please (20), when should they then move to it's necessary (19)? I don't know. Maybe they would make a motion with both options on it and join in the alternative?

This Q will make you happy then North.

In Erie Question, do we determine which St law first (horizontal Question) or do we decide Fed or St (vertical question) first?

Based on this handy flow chart I found on TLS, http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=153690 & my notes I think that you usually solve the vertical question (Erie/Hanna/Sibbach/Byrd) then move onto the choice of state law (Klaxon/Bernhardt). See also Lavitz on page 3/4. I guess if federal law is on point (FRCP/Constitution etc.), why bother looking at which state it's in anyway? https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1899400960/h2D8AF66D/ Ignore the previous answer, I misunderstood the question. My gut is that it would be case dependent and you would usually know which state law just because Klaxon is designed to KISS. But, where's Lavitz when you need him?

[Br3v]

The only thing I worry about in applying Fed or St law question first is, just what law would you be balancing Fed interests and St interests with (Byrd) if you don't know what St law you are using. Or even whether it would be outcome determinative?

[lhanvt13]

I'm not quite sure when a Necessary party joinder analysis is required. Do we always do a NP joinder analysis when a permissive joinder or impleader doesn't work?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...why would you do NP analysis (19) after a failure of Rule 20 or 14? Shouldn't joining party attempt to do a R19 analysis first so that they can get the party included without any severing (42)?

isn't it that if a Permissive Joinder (20) doesn't work that we have to see whether they are a necessary party (19a) and if 19a doesn't work we see if they're indispensable (19b)? I'm so confused and sad

Oh dude I never thought of it that way. My assumption was that they'd be like, "Hey we got to join this dude he's necessary/indispensable" (19a/19b) then "Oh wait, he's not LOLOL can you gives us permission pretty plz (20)". On your flow they'd be like "Can we have permission purty plz (20)" then if they'd got rejected they'd argue a "jk bro, this dude's really necessary". Is that right? And then if the parties start with pretty please (20), when should they then move to it's necessary (19)? I don't know. Maybe they would make a motion with both options on it and join in the alternative?

Ah I see I guess that could be another possibility. Yeah I think we're both right. As to the bolded part, wouldn't the analysis move to 19 whenever a PJ, SMJ, or Venue issue comes up during the 20 analysis? Like, "... Therefore, the court does not have personal jurisdiction over [C] and permissive joinder would not be permitted. However, [A] could also argue that [C] is a necessary party because [necessary analysis]. If the courts deem that [C] is a necessary party, the court could either proceed or dismiss the case. The court will likely [dismiss/continue with] this case because under 19(b) [19b analysis - indispensable party]."

Does that seem right ?

I'm not sure when a 19->20 scenario would come up. Do you have an example where I would have to analyze 19 first then 20? I think if the question asks "is [C] a necessary party, we would do 19a and 19b and then stop. I don't think 20 would come in to play anywhere in the analysis under questions like that.

[lhanvt13]

The only thing I worry about in applying Fed or St law question first is, just what law would you be balancing Fed interests and St interests with (Byrd) if you don't know what St law you are using. Or even whether it would be outcome determinative?

Could you give us an example? Kind of curious how two state laws vs. federal law thing could come up. Also, I agree with you in that if I don't know which state law I would be using, the Byrd analysis would be weird. I'd have to know the applicable state law first.

[desiballa21]

Having some trouble with these..

P (NY) sues D (NJ) in fed court (diversity). D files a 3rd party complaint against insurance company (DE and NY). Insurance company files 12B2 lack of personal jurisdiction... should it be denied or granted or is there insufficient information to determine?


Also; Klaxon says follow the forum state's choice of law rules, right? If there's a conflict b/w NY and NJ law in federal court and court is in NJ, Klaxon doesn't say follow NJ automatically.. it says look to NJ's choice of law rules THEN follow that. Or am I wrong?

THANKS.

[Br3v]

The only thing I worry about in applying Fed or St law question first is, just what law would you be balancing Fed interests and St interests with (Byrd) if you don't know what St law you are using. Or even whether it would be outcome determinative?

Could you give us an example? Kind of curious how two state laws vs. federal law thing could come up. Also, I agree with you in that if I don't know which state law I would be using, the Byrd analysis would be weird. I'd have to know the applicable state law first.

Well I mean, a major part of Erie is that you have to make a vertical decision and horizontal decision right?

Say suit in Texas Fed Dist Ct. between a Californian and New Yorker about a claim that all took place in Tx, but imagine something weird where its not for sure whether TX law or some other state would apply. A Tx State Ct would have to decide whether to apply Tx law or the other state, and thus a Fed Dist Ct would have to guess what law the Tx State court would apply.

So far?

Now assume the Tx law would clearly give way to the Fed practice, but the other state law would win out over the Fed practice. Therefore when it comes to balancing whether to apply Fed or St law, it is going to make a big difference as to what State law you pick right?

[BPLawl]

Say suit in Texas Fed Dist Ct. between a Californian and New Yorker about a claim that all took place in Tx, but imagine something weird where its not for sure whether TX law or some other state would apply. A Tx State Ct would have to decide whether to apply Tx law or the other state, and thus a Fed Dist Ct would have to guess what law the Tx State court would apply.

So far?

Now assume the Tx law would clearly give way to the Fed practice, but the other state law would win out over the Fed practice. Therefore when it comes to balancing whether to apply Fed or St law, it is going to make a big difference as to what State law you pick right?

I see what you mean, with Byrd here. However, a) under Bernhardt they could just wait for the state law to control b) the FRCP/28 USC prong of Erie is done at this point. If I get this we're already at Byrd right? So we're kind of doing vertical (no FRCP/28 USC directly on point) --> horizontal (which state) ---> vertical again (Byrd balancing).

This sounds like an exam question or something.

P (NY) sues D (NJ) in fed court (diversity). D files a 3rd party complaint against insurance company (DE and NY). Insurance company files 12B2 lack of personal jurisdiction... should it be denied or granted or is there insufficient information to determine?

Not enough information. Where is the fed court?

Also; Klaxon says follow the forum state's choice of law rules, right? If there's a conflict b/w NY and NJ law in federal court and court is in NJ, Klaxon doesn't say follow NJ automatically.. it says look to NJ's choice of law rules THEN follow that. Or am I wrong?

If I'm sure of anything in law school or life, it is that you are super correct.

isn't it that if a Permissive Joinder (20) doesn't work that we have to see whether they are a necessary party (19a) and if 19a doesn't work we see if they're indispensable (19b)? I'm so confused and sad

Oh dude I never thought of it that way. My assumption was that they'd be like, "Hey we got to join this dude he's necessary/indispensable" (19a/19b) then "Oh wait, he's not LOLOL can you gives us permission pretty plz (20)". On your flow they'd be like "Can we have permission purty plz (20)" then if they'd got rejected they'd argue a "jk bro, this dude's really necessary". Is that right? And then if the parties start with pretty please (20), when should they then move to it's necessary (19)? I don't know. Maybe they would make a motion with both options on it and join in the alternative?

Ah I see I guess that could be another possibility. Yeah I think we're both right. As to the bolded part, wouldn't the analysis move to 19 whenever a PJ, SMJ, or Venue issue comes up during the 20 analysis? Like, "... Therefore, the court does not have personal jurisdiction over [C] and permissive joinder would not be permitted. However, [A] could also argue that [C] is a necessary party because [necessary analysis]. If the courts deem that [C] is a necessary party, the court could either proceed or dismiss the case. The court will likely [dismiss/continue with] this case because under 19(b) [19b analysis - indispensable party]."

Does that seem right ?

I'm not sure when a 19->20 scenario would come up. Do you have an example where I would have to analyze 19 first then 20? I think if the question asks "is [C] a necessary party, we would do 19a and 19b and then stop. I don't think 20 would come in to play anywhere in the analysis under questions like that.[/quote][/quote]

The first part of your answer seems to conflict with Rule 82's statement that the FRCP does not extend or limit venue or jurisdiction. Why could you join in 19 even if PJ failed? When would PJ not fail and service of process be possible (19a1)? Much confused.
I was thinking advise A on what parties he should join- "The court should/not allow C to be joined by A. A should argue that C is a necessary party because [19a etc etc]. If C does not wish to be joined C will argue []. Additionally, A will argue that C is an indispensible party because [19b]. C will argue [bla bla bla]. The court will find this argument more persuasive. However, under the more permissive joinder rules A may still be able to join C as party because of common question of law/fact.... [20]"

[desiballa21]

P (NY) sues D (NJ) in fed court (diversity). D files a 3rd party complaint against insurance company (DE and NY). Insurance company files 12B2 lack of personal jurisdiction... should it be denied or granted or is there insufficient information to determine?

Not enough information. Where is the fed court?

Fed court's in NJ.

[iworkforlsac]

Question in K:

Confused on when substantial performance arises, when a material (total) breach arises. Thoughts?

[Br3v]

P (NY) sues D (NJ) in fed court (diversity). D files a 3rd party complaint against insurance company (DE and NY). Insurance company files 12B2 lack of personal jurisdiction... should it be denied or granted or is there insufficient information to determine?

Not enough information. Where is the fed court?

Fed court's in NJ.

Adding a party then you need PJ. So not enough information. We need to know the reason 3rd party is being added.

If they are being added for a claim arising out of a contact they have in NJ then PJ valid. We didnt cover insurance companies much (as in whether if A, insured by X, crashes car in NY, is that the same thing as X crashing car in NY?) But if we assume insurance company = insured as far as minimum contacts and specific Jur arising out of it, then if D is being sued for something they did in NJ and insurance is liable for that action, I would imagine there is good PJ because it is arising out of that specific contact.

[First Offense]

Question in K:

Confused on when substantial performance arises, when a material (total) breach arises. Thoughts?

From what I gather, if it's a material breach, there probably won't be substantial performance. A material breach is a breach that frustrates the purpose of the K. Partial breaches are the ones that would likely end up with substantial performance.

Then again, looking at my Ks notes, I feel like I may have a blind spot when it comes to substantial performance.

[lhanvt13]

isn't it that if a Permissive Joinder (20) doesn't work that we have to see whether they are a necessary party (19a) and if 19a doesn't work we see if they're indispensable (19b)? I'm so confused and sad

Oh dude I never thought of it that way. My assumption was that they'd be like, "Hey we got to join this dude he's necessary/indispensable" (19a/19b) then "Oh wait, he's not LOLOL can you gives us permission pretty plz (20)". On your flow they'd be like "Can we have permission purty plz (20)" then if they'd got rejected they'd argue a "jk bro, this dude's really necessary". Is that right? And then if the parties start with pretty please (20), when should they then move to it's necessary (19)? I don't know. Maybe they would make a motion with both options on it and join in the alternative?

Ah I see I guess that could be another possibility. Yeah I think we're both right. As to the bolded part, wouldn't the analysis move to 19 whenever a PJ, SMJ, or Venue issue comes up during the 20 analysis? Like, "... Therefore, the court does not have personal jurisdiction over [C] and permissive joinder would not be permitted. However, [A] could also argue that [C] is a necessary party because [necessary analysis]. If the courts deem that [C] is a necessary party, the court could either proceed or dismiss the case. The court will likely [dismiss/continue with] this case because under 19(b) [19b analysis - indispensable party]."

Does that seem right ?

I'm not sure when a 19->20 scenario would come up. Do you have an example where I would have to analyze 19 first then 20? I think if the question asks "is [C] a necessary party, we would do 19a and 19b and then stop. I don't think 20 would come in to play anywhere in the analysis under questions like that.

The first part of your answer seems to conflict with Rule 82's statement that the FRCP does not extend or limit venue or jurisdiction. Why could you join in 19 even if PJ failed? When would PJ not fail and service of process be possible (19a1)? Much confused.
I was thinking advise A on what parties he should join- "The court should/not allow C to be joined by A. A should argue that C is a necessary party because [19a etc etc]. If C does not wish to be joined C will argue []. Additionally, A will argue that C is an indispensible party because [19b]. C will argue [bla bla bla]. The court will find this argument more persuasive. However, under the more permissive joinder rules A may still be able to join C as party because of common question of law/fact.... [20]"

oh shit nevermind. Necessary party joinder analysis is only when a NON original defendant wants to join a TPD. Nowhere else would we discuss 19. Acing Civ Pro ftw.

disclaimer: I'm probably wrong and will contradict my own statement tomorrow... Fucking law school

[06102016]

..

[Br3v]

Do you need to have independent SMJ for Rule 18?
I know you can add any claim against the same D under Rule 18, but does that mean assuming you have valid SMJ from your "core" claim, that SMJ is valid for all the claims you add on via Rule 18?

[lhanvt13]

Do you need to have independent SMJ for Rule 18?
I know you can add any claim against the same D under Rule 18, but does that mean assuming you have valid SMJ from your "core" claim, that SMJ is valid for all the claims you add on via Rule 18?

I'm pretty sure under Rule 18, if the original claim is valid, then you can add anything to everything as long as SMJ is satisfied. I wonder if the amount in controversy is looked at separately or aggregated.. I think aggregation would be allowed. Anybody think otherwise?

edit: to add that it is only against who that original claim was against

[Dolphine]

rule against perpetuities plz....