1L Substantive Law Questions (c/o 2017) Forum

[dibreezy]

BTW, if you want to let slip an outline section specifically pertaining to Discovery so that I can cross examine it with my outline I would not be complaining. That said, you're doing the Lord's work.

They're separate because of two-semester civ pro, but here are my full outlines:

Fall (SMJ, PJ, Supp. J, Removal, Venue, Pleadings)

Spring (Joinder, Aggregate Lit, Discovery, Judgment Motions, Preclusion, Erie (very limited on Erie))

Haha thanks! I just remembered that you put this up in two parts and when I downloaded it I assumed Discovery was part of it. Came back to look and you already had me covered. my man

[WestWingWatcher]

Does anyone else get prof's practice exams where a question has a scenario where there is clearly no subject matter jurisdiction, but then there are a shit ton of other things to address in the case? Should I just go, 'clearly no subject matter jurisdiction, but I'll assume no one notices for the time being and just address all the other issues then?' My prof gives extremely broad questions after huge fact patterns so I don't really have a formula for this shit.

1L so take this with a grain of salt, but if there is no SMJ, then you have to write out why?

Why don't the facts meet FQ?
Why don't they meet Diversity? Lack of AiC?
Why isn't supplemental jurisdiction possible?

Simply stating no SMJ is akin to just giving the C in IRAC.

But like I said disclaimer, I'm a 1L.

I should have clarified. I meant I go through all of that first and say no subject matter jurisdiction. But then there are like three more pages of additional facts relating to the same suit improperly in federal court...so it gets really open ended without a solid direction to take

I actually encountered a similar situation with one of my professor's old exams. It was a state law claim, clearly less than 75k, with no potential for aggregating over 75k... but then there were a million questions that would only make sense if there was subject matter jurisdiction over the claim... Hopefully this does not actually happen on the exam, but if it does, I guess the best approach is to 1) make clear that the there is no SMJ, then add a little disclaimer like "but if there was, the following claims/joinders/whatever would work out this way:"

[Stylistics]

lol when did the CivPro brigade come in? Where were you with your questions when I needed to review for my own exam?

Anyway I took it today. I recreated it from my recollection and outlined how I answered. Modified names and such (actually can't remember some exact names). 3hr exam.

Anyone care to tell me how they think I did overall, whether the stuff I missed, ran out of time for, were big deals?

Could help you prep for your own exam

[pancakes3]

I've got CivPro tomorrow but mine's only a midterm so I'm not sweating it. I don't even know what personal jurisdiction even is.

[BVest]

Okay, I finally got around to copying over the rest of my 1L outlines. There's also a short attack outline on Civ Pro that I think is pretty good.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=240783

[WestWingWatcher]

PJ for Permissive Counterclaims?
Hypo:

P1 has successfully filed a claim in a district court against D1 and D2 (good SMJ, Venue, PJ through specific jurisdiction), and then D1 files a cross claim against D2 that arises out of the same transaction/occurrence (so venue still good, SMJ through supplemental jurisdiction, and PJ because it the same event so same contacts with forum state). D1 now wants to file a permissive counter claim under FRCP 13(b). Joinder is okay, and the claim is for 100k between diverse parties, so SMJ is okay. But what about Personal Jurisdiction?? If D1 and D2 are only subjective to specific jurisdiction in the forum state because of there specific contacts that gave rise to the original claim, but the permissive claim has nothing to do with those contacts and took place in a different state, then there appears to be in personal jurisdiction over the claim

Does this mean the claim cannot be made, and they will have to bring suit somewhere else? Or am I missing some obscure rule that does not require PJ for counterclaims?

Thanks for any insight you can offer.


Every time I think I have everything under control, something else comes up.

[BVest]

I'm pretty sure adding claims does not change the personal jurisdiction calculus. Plus, you asked about a counterclaim -- the P, in bringing the suit in that court, has conceded the personal jurisdiction of the court over him.

That said, the court would have discretion to sever (creating a separate cause of action) or hold separate trials (same cause of action, just two different trials, the results of which would go into the court's final judgment in the case). The court would do that if the new claim is so unrelated that it doesn't make any sense or would confuse the jury too much to hear it in the same trial as the original claim.

[WestWingWatcher]

I'm pretty sure adding claims does not change the personal jurisdiction calculus. Plus, you asked about a counterclaim -- the P, in bringing the suit in that court, has conceded the personal jurisdiction of the court over him.

That said, the court would have discretion to sever (creating a separate cause of action) or hold separate trials (same cause of action, just two different trials, the results of which would go into the court's final judgment in the case). The court would do that if the new claim is so unrelated that it doesn't make any sense or would confuse the jury too much to hear it in the same trial as the original claim.

ah you're right, civpro has my brain a puddle.

What I meant to say that once D1 had established a cross claim against D2 using 13(g) they then used rule 18 (a) to join a completely unrelated claim against D2.

Regardless, you are saying that the court would still need to find PJ over this additional/unrelated claim D1 has against D2?

[BVest]

I didn't say that. And I don't think this is a PJ issue at all. The issue is going to be that crossclaims have to be same T/O. Even after one crossclaim for the same T/O, subsequent crossclaims between D1 and D2 will still be governed by 13(g) for their relationship to the original claim.

[WestWingWatcher]

I didn't say that. And I don't think this is a PJ issue at all. The issue is going to be that crossclaims have to be same T/O. Even after one crossclaim for the same T/O, subsequent crossclaims between D1 and D2 will still be governed by 13(g) for their relationship to the original claim.

hmmm. What do you make of FRCP 18 (a) " a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party."

From, this it makes me thing that the joinder rule is relatively liberal, at least, only to be restrained by SMJ and PJ.

Because it is not out of the same T/O supp. jurisdiction would not be available, however, because the claim is 100k and between diverse parties, it should have diversity jurisdiction in its own right.

so the only thing holding it back is PJ? *which i'm not sure what to do with*


I have no doubt that you may be right, however, unfortunately on a final I will have to understand how the rule works, and right now I don't..

[BVest]

No, you're probably right. But I don't think there are any PJ issues once you clear the hurdle in the first place.

[WestWingWatcher]

Ah, who knows, I may be going too far down the rabbit hole anyway.

For anyone interested, this random person on google has some good answers on the issue (that I hope are right):

http://msgre2.people.wm.edu/PJVJoinder.htm

[nothingtosee]

Alright, so Alice (Vermont) sues Bianca (New Hampshire). Bianca joins Carla (Vermont) under Rule 19, asserting that they are co-owners of the thing that injured Alice.
I'm not sure which of these situations is a correct explanation (if any):

Option A. Bianca and Carla are considered a single party, so 1332 complete diversity is destroyed.
Option B. Alice is required to make a claim against Carla, but she can't because 1367(b); subject matter jurisdiction is destroyed.
Option C. Alice needn't bring a claim against Carla unless she wants to. If she doesn't want to bring a claim, she gets supplemental jurisdiction over Carla.

[foundingfather]

Civ Pro - personal jurisdiction

If a defendant failed to raise its 12(b)(2) defense in its first Rule 12 defense, can a court dismiss the case sua sponte?

[sesto elemento]

Alright, so Alice (Vermont) sues Bianca (New Hampshire). Bianca joins Carla (Vermont) under Rule 19, asserting that they are co-owners of the thing that injured Alice.
I'm not sure which of these situations is a correct explanation (if any):

Option A. Bianca and Carla are considered a single party, so 1332 complete diversity is destroyed.
Option B. Alice is required to make a claim against Carla, but she can't because 1367(b); subject matter jurisdiction is destroyed.
Option C. Alice needn't bring a claim against Carla unless she wants to. If she doesn't want to bring a claim, she gets supplemental jurisdiction over Carla.

B because adding Carla would destroy diversity under 1367b.
The current suit between Alice and Bianca is based on diversity (if we have over 75k that is), adding Carla would destroy complete diversity under Strawbridge.

[sesto elemento]

Civ Pro - personal jurisdiction

If a defendant failed to raise its 12(b)(2) defense in its first Rule 12 defense, can a court dismiss the case sua sponte?

Nah, 12b2 is a disfavored motion so court won't dismiss sua sponte, they will treat is as if D consented to PJ when if filed its first defense.

12b2-5 are disfavored, better bring them up when you first file motion or answer the complaint or else you waive them.

SMJ and venue are the only ones that a court can bring up sua sponte...I think.

[foundingfather]

Civ Pro - personal jurisdiction

If a defendant failed to raise its 12(b)(2) defense in its first Rule 12 defense, can a court dismiss the case sua sponte?

Nah, 12b2 is a disfavored motion so court won't dismiss sua sponte, they will treat is as if D consented to PJ when if filed its first defense.

12b2-5 are disfavored, better bring them up when you first file motion or answer the complaint or else you waive them.

SMJ and venue are the only ones that a court can bring up sua sponte...I think.

you're the man. also, where's my gunner pm!?

[drumstickies]

Alright, so Alice (Vermont) sues Bianca (New Hampshire). Bianca joins Carla (Vermont) under Rule 19, asserting that they are co-owners of the thing that injured Alice.
I'm not sure which of these situations is a correct explanation (if any):

Option A. Bianca and Carla are considered a single party, so 1332 complete diversity is destroyed.
Option B. Alice is required to make a claim against Carla, but she can't because 1367(b); subject matter jurisdiction is destroyed.
Option C. Alice needn't bring a claim against Carla unless she wants to. If she doesn't want to bring a claim, she gets supplemental jurisdiction over Carla.

B because adding Carla would destroy diversity under 1367b.
The current suit between Alice and Bianca is based on diversity (if we have over 75k that is), adding Carla would destroy complete diversity under Strawbridge.

i'm gonna have to disagree with this. 1367(b) speaks only to claims from plaintiffs against parties joined under 19 (among the others). third-party defendants brought in under rule 19 by other defendants don't destroy diversity jurisdiction and come in under supplemental jurisdiction. so i guess C sounds best for me.

ETA: thinking about this more makes me unsure. rule 19 parties are required joinders. wouldn't Ps be able to make a run around diversity jurisdiction by doing what i said above? but 1367(b) clearly only prohibits claims that Ps can make.

ETA2: nvm, that's the purpose of 1367(b): to prohibit Ps from skirting diversity jurisdiction. that's why Alice wouldn't be able to sue Carla. the joinder's proper.

[sesto elemento]

Alright, so Alice (Vermont) sues Bianca (New Hampshire). Bianca joins Carla (Vermont) under Rule 19, asserting that they are co-owners of the thing that injured Alice.
I'm not sure which of these situations is a correct explanation (if any):

Option A. Bianca and Carla are considered a single party, so 1332 complete diversity is destroyed.
Option B. Alice is required to make a claim against Carla, but she can't because 1367(b); subject matter jurisdiction is destroyed.
Option C. Alice needn't bring a claim against Carla unless she wants to. If she doesn't want to bring a claim, she gets supplemental jurisdiction over Carla.

B because adding Carla would destroy diversity under 1367b.
The current suit between Alice and Bianca is based on diversity (if we have over 75k that is), adding Carla would destroy complete diversity under Strawbridge.

i'm gonna have to disagree with this. 1367(b) speaks only to claims from plaintiffs against parties joined under 19 (among the others). third-party defendants brought in under rule 19 by other defendants don't destroy diversity jurisdiction and come in under supplemental jurisdiction. so i guess C sounds best for me.

ETA: thinking about this more makes me unsure. rule 19 parties are required joinders. wouldn't Ps be able to make a run around diversity jurisdiction by doing what i said above? but 1367(b) clearly prohibits claims taht Ps can make.

I think you're right. I think this question is supposed to illustrate the Kroger v. Owen decision. Where the lady chose option B and then the case was dismissed. I think option C brings up the point of what if she had not brought the claim against the party that D impleaded.

[drumstickies]

Alright, so Alice (Vermont) sues Bianca (New Hampshire). Bianca joins Carla (Vermont) under Rule 19, asserting that they are co-owners of the thing that injured Alice.
I'm not sure which of these situations is a correct explanation (if any):

Option A. Bianca and Carla are considered a single party, so 1332 complete diversity is destroyed.
Option B. Alice is required to make a claim against Carla, but she can't because 1367(b); subject matter jurisdiction is destroyed.
Option C. Alice needn't bring a claim against Carla unless she wants to. If she doesn't want to bring a claim, she gets supplemental jurisdiction over Carla.

B because adding Carla would destroy diversity under 1367b.
The current suit between Alice and Bianca is based on diversity (if we have over 75k that is), adding Carla would destroy complete diversity under Strawbridge.

i'm gonna have to disagree with this. 1367(b) speaks only to claims from plaintiffs against parties joined under 19 (among the others). third-party defendants brought in under rule 19 by other defendants don't destroy diversity jurisdiction and come in under supplemental jurisdiction. so i guess C sounds best for me.

ETA: thinking about this more makes me unsure. rule 19 parties are required joinders. wouldn't Ps be able to make a run around diversity jurisdiction by doing what i said above? but 1367(b) clearly prohibits claims taht Ps can make.

I think you're right. I think this question is supposed to illustrate the Kroger v. Owen decision. Where the lady chose option B and then the case was dismissed. I think option C brings up the point of what if she had not brought the claim against the party that D impleaded.

ah, yeah. i think i got joinder/impleaders a bit mixed up.. is this a question that the professor made up? since, technically, a defendant doesn't join another defendant under rule 19. that's more of a rule 14 impleader. the joinder has to be at the outset, and FRCP 19 is generally used as a defense for the defendant to dismiss the action, saying that a required party isn't there [FRCP 12(b)(7)]. it seems like a badly worded question.

[nothingtosee]

ah, yeah. i think i got joinder/impleaders a bit mixed up.. is this a question that the professor made up? since, technically, a defendant doesn't join another defendant under rule 19. that's more of a rule 14 impleader. the joinder has to be at the outset, and FRCP 19 is generally used as a defense for the defendant to dismiss the action, saying that a required party isn't there [FRCP 12(b)(7)]. it seems like a badly worded question.

Yeah, this is from a professor's old exam.

It says essentially, A sues B. B moves under Rule 19 to join C as a required defendant, since C is a co-owner.

[sesto elemento]

Ok, now i see why i was confused. My class never covered rule 19, just 14 so I thought 19 was referring to impleader.

[drumstickies]

ah, yeah. i think i got joinder/impleaders a bit mixed up.. is this a question that the professor made up? since, technically, a defendant doesn't join another defendant under rule 19. that's more of a rule 14 impleader. the joinder has to be at the outset, and FRCP 19 is generally used as a defense for the defendant to dismiss the action, saying that a required party isn't there [FRCP 12(b)(7)]. it seems like a badly worded question.

Yeah, this is from a professor's old exam.

It says essentially, A sues B. B moves under Rule 19 to join C as a required defendant, since C is a co-owner.

dang, well your prof definitely knows civ pro better than i do, so i guess this means i should review some rules before my exam tomorrow..

[JustHawkin]

Civ Pro

I've been going by Freer lecture and book to walk me through things, but one part I may have missed:

What am I even remotely suppose to take from Gasparini in Erie?

[dibreezy]

Just finished Civ Pro midterm and am absolutely furious with the prof. It was a super basic question. The question read something like, if P files in state court is there SMJ? If P files in federal court is there SMJ?

How could the MAJOR essay be so narrow? I would have loved to break down PJ, Supplemental J, Eerie, etc.

But no, we just get asked if there is SMJ when D1 is a Corp. with citizenship in DE and MA, D2 is a US Citizen domiciled in London, and P is domiciled in MA. 3 claims. C1 & C2 were against both D's for violating a patent and C3 was against D3 for a conversion case ($100k)that brought up a novel point of law.

I actually did mention Eerie a little regarding C3. But my point is....

IS THIS DUDE SERIOUS!!! I justurdered myself prepping for this midterm and you ask a question we could have answered after week 3!!??!?!??