Top Law Schools

My professor seemed to allude to wanting us to check for PJ over counterclaims. If P sues D for battery in NY, and there is PJ in New York for this claim, but he then files a permissive counterclaim, completely unrelated, this is where we would need to ask for PJ right?

If its a compulsory counterclaim, New York probably will have PJ over P anyway.

Sound good?

Pretty sure that even with a permissive counterclaim against the initial P, D won't have to establish that the Court has PJ over the P. This is b/c P suing in the forum is seen as consent to jurisdiction there. The issue is with joining new parties for PJ purposes. That's when you'll still do the analysis.

PJ is always satisfied for the party who is bringing a claim, per above. Never need to analyze it.

Transpher wrote:PJ is always satisfied for the party who is bringing a claim, per above. Never need to analyze it.

Right but if D is bringing a claim against P, that is completely unrelated to NY or the current claim by P against D, I think that the court still needs to make sure that it has the power to enter PJ over P for THIS PERMISSIVE claim.

Although there might be an argument that by submitting his original claim, P has waived PJ for all claims. I'm not sure.

They sued in the forum, they're pretty much estopped from claiming they don't consent to jurisdiction there when they are the one who brought the suit in that forum in the first place.

BCLS wrote:Although there might be an argument that by submitting his original claim, P has waived PJ for all claims in this suit. I'm not sure.

It's more than an argument, it's the rule.

Maybe you're thinking about whether the court has jurisdiction over D (which is the only issue). But, if D counterclaims, regardless of the nature of the counterclaim, D has consented to the suit with P. So once the parties have brought claims against each other, there's no issue of PJ.

Transpher wrote:

BCLS wrote:Although there might be an argument that by submitting his original claim, P has waived PJ for all claims in this suit. I'm not sure.

It's more than an argument, it's the rule.

Maybe you're thinking about whether the court has jurisdiction over D (which is the only issue). But, if D counterclaims, regardless of the nature of the counterclaim, D has consented to the suit with P. So once the parties have brought claims against each other, there's no issue of PJ.

Ok, Thanks guys!

You're definitely referring to SMJ. You have to evaluate SMJ for every claim asserted in a suit (FQ, Diversity, or Supplemental). In your hypo if D's permissive counterclaim doesn't have it's own basis for jurisdiction, it can't come in under supplemental and thus would be barred.

This is actually a majority/minority split. The majority of courts state that since the Plaintiff has "picked the forum," he has consented to PJ in this jurisdiction, and is unable to challenge the permissive counterclaim on PJ grounds. Obviously, the minority would be the opposite.