Top Law Schools

Can someone explain the "anticipated defense" concept under the Mottley rule in SMJ? Is it when a plaintiff alleges that defendant has done something to violate a federal rule/statute/regulation?

oh right, whoopsies. Person below got it right.

The fact that a defendant will use a defense that arises under federal statute/law is not sufficient to allow the plaintiff to file a claim in federal court. Plaintiff must allege a cause of action arising under either federal question or diversity jurisdiction to get into federal court.

P sues D on a state negligence claim. D has a potential defense founded on a federal statute. This does not mean P can file in federal court.

Awesome, thanks!

StyrofoamWar wrote:The fact that a defendant will use a defense that arises under federal statute/law is not sufficient to allow the plaintiff to file a claim in federal court. Plaintiff must allege a cause of action arising under either federal question or diversity jurisdiction to get into federal court.

P sues D on a state negligence claim. D has a potential defense founded on a federal statute. This does not mean P can file in federal court.

+1

As my prof put it "Can you state how you were wronged without discussing Federal Law? If Yes, then not arising-under. If No, then it's a Federal Question."

In Mottley they could've simply stated "Louisville RR breached their contract and revoked our tickets." The Federal Question was the RR's defense, not the claim.

Where as in Smith, the claim was "The Bank wronged us by buying junk Fed bonds." They can't simply state "Hey, they wronged us," without having the Federal issue.