Law School Discussion

I need help with this question below. I do not have the answer from the prof. 
_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _

George and Laura have joint ownership of a house in Texas.  Laura's daughter, Jenna, by a previous marriage, moved into the house after George and Laura moved to Washington.  George has filed suit to evict Jenna and for $100,000 in back rent.  Jenna has filed a counterclaim alleging that she now has sole ownership of the house because Laura secretly gave her a deed.  George moves to dismiss Jenna's counterclaim for failure to join a FRCP Rule 19 (necessary & indispensable) party, Laura.  George is now a citizen of Washington and Jenna and Laura are citizens of Texas.  The case has been filed in federal court, based solely on diversity.

A.  The judge will dismiss the suit because you should never sue your mother.

B.  Laura can be joined because this is a cross-claim and is a claim by a party not arising out of the same transaction or occurrence.

C.  Laura need not be joined.

D.  Laura cannot be joined because it would destroy diversity and thus the counterclaim must be dismissed.

E.  Although Laura should be joined, she is only a necessary, not an indispensable party.
_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _

I thought the answer should be D, but at the time the suit was filed, it would not destroy diversity and I thought that's when diversity counts, not after the filing.  So I'm not sure if the sentence "George is now a citizen of Washington and Jenna and Laura are citizens of Texas" is to throw me off or the prof messed up and should have put that before the filing.  I also thought Laura should be joined because she's co-owner but I'm not sure. 

Any help and explanation is appreciated.

Ok, I'm looking over my notes and see something about joint tort feasors, joint and several liability, and concurrent tort feasors.

Is there a difference or are they all referring to the same thing?

I have interviews lined up for public defender's, DA, and attorney general office.  Any advice?

It went something like this and it was on Negligence, per sae, and res ipsa loquitor.  This question pertained more to negligence and per sae.

Fact pattern:  A hotel was within a certain distance from a private school, and there was a statute that said it would be illegal to serve alcohol within that distance because of the school kids.  They went ahead and served drinks to a hotel guest, who visibly drunk, went to valet and drove off.  He then hit a parked car, someone was in it, which hit a light post, when caused a blackout, which then scared a child in their home which attended that private school, she ran out of the house and got hit by another driver, who was not drunk. 

My question involves the duty and breach, not to the drunk driver, but to the lady in the parked car in regards to the hotel and to the school child in the house in regards to the hotel.  If you say there is duty and breach established for the child against the hotel, would you argue Per sae?  I know that you can argue if proximate cause or maybe even actual cause is or is not satisified, but I needed to first get past duty and breach. 

Let's also assume that we already argued that there was duty and breach and negligence was established for the drunk driver against the hotel.

Thanks for any input.

I think I just suck at contracts.  I finished my outline and pretty much memorized everything but when I try to take practice exams, I suck the big one.  For some reason, I can't spot all the issues.  After taking the practice exam, I look at the sample answer, and I'm like, "Oh yea" but during the exams, I just can't do it. 

I'm soooo frustrated because I'm actually caught up and have been looking at practice exams and using some supplements. 

Oh well, maybe i'm just not good at contracts  

Anyone have any advice or anyone in the same situation with another class, if not contracts?