(Possibly) Stupid Question
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:32 pm
When discussing Supp. Jx, the Emanuel book gives the following example for a fed ct having Supp Jx over impleader claims by 3rd party P's against 3rd party D's:
"While Bobb, a police officer with the Ames, TX Police Dept. (APD), is trying to arrest Paul, a private citizen, Bobb chokes Paul. Paul sues Bobb and the APD for assault, in a diversity action. Paul, Bobb and the APD are all citizens of TX. Bobb then makes an impleader (third-party) claim against the Ames PD, saying that under the APD officers' union K, the APD is liable to pay Bobb's legal-defense costs. Even though Bobb and the APD are both citizens of TX, the lack of diversity doesn't matter b/c 3rd party claims by a 3rd party P (Bobb) against a 3rd party D (APD) fall within the court's supp Jx."
My question: Is this a typo? How is a common law suit (assault) b/t citizens of the same State a "diversity action?" Thank you. This question makes me feel like I'm losing my mind.
"While Bobb, a police officer with the Ames, TX Police Dept. (APD), is trying to arrest Paul, a private citizen, Bobb chokes Paul. Paul sues Bobb and the APD for assault, in a diversity action. Paul, Bobb and the APD are all citizens of TX. Bobb then makes an impleader (third-party) claim against the Ames PD, saying that under the APD officers' union K, the APD is liable to pay Bobb's legal-defense costs. Even though Bobb and the APD are both citizens of TX, the lack of diversity doesn't matter b/c 3rd party claims by a 3rd party P (Bobb) against a 3rd party D (APD) fall within the court's supp Jx."
My question: Is this a typo? How is a common law suit (assault) b/t citizens of the same State a "diversity action?" Thank you. This question makes me feel like I'm losing my mind.