LOL. Okay. Well said, Julie.
Messages - Duncanjp
Thanks for your help, guys - very much appreciated!
LOL. What a total head-scratcher. This whole forum owes Julie a standing ovation for posting some of the most puzzling time wasters in the annals of internet trolls.
Ayn, since you did not have complete diversity between all of the plaintiffs and the defendant, the only way you would have gotten the counterclaim in would be to find that the district court had original jx in the first place under a federal question. If you established that the issue was in fact a federal question, and the counterclaim was so related to the main claim as to form a part of the same claim, then the court would have SMJ over the counterclaim.
I need to look into how the district court treats discretionary counterclaims. You're right that it would have supplemental jx if the counterclaim were compulsory, and they would hear it in the interest of judicial economy. But I could swear I saw somewhere that district courts don't like to hear discretionary counterclaims. I'll have to look into that and get back to you.
The facts you provided are incomplete, Ayn. Where is D from and what is the original amount in controversy? I'm only halfway through civ pro myself, so my opinion is worth what you're paying for it. In any case, I think you could analyze whether the court had original jurisdiction in the first place unless the facts clearly stipulated that the district court had original jurisdiction based on a substantial federal question. You indicate that the main claim was a state cause of action that relied on a federal law, so it seems the lines are blurred (typical law exam). It may have been worthwhile to discuss whether the state question in the original complaint substantially outweighed the federal question. If it did, the district court could dismiss and the counterclaim would be dismissed along with it. There's also judicial economy to think about.
Incidentally, if the district court had original jurisdiction, I don't believe diversity would be a consideration as to whether the court would hear the counterclaim.
« on: November 27, 2011, 01:19:10 AM »
Pleading guilty to computer hacking at 17 is a very serious matter. Not like staying up past your bedtime, or pranks like smashing pumpkins and streaking around the block when you're 14. Hacking goes to your honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. If you really want to become a licensed attorney, an officer of the court, you'll wait for the Bar Association to uncover your past at your peril. Even if you slid it under the radar to get the license to practice law, how do you know that somebody who remembers you wouldn't inform the Bar Association upon learning that you, former computer hacker, had become an attorney? You might find yourself disbarred for offering a fraudulent application. Best to disclose it up front. It's a hell of a lot easier to explain your conduct at 17 when you're forthcoming about it than it is to explain away why you weren't forthcoming about it in the first place.
I feel like a social outcast at my school. I try really hard to be friendly and talk to the other students, but they've become really cliquish into their study groups. It's something that I'm not really used to because I used to be one of the most sociable people on my undergraduate campus. I don't know what's going on, but I really want to remedy the situation and at least feel like I can get along with these people.
You don't say whether you're a 1L or what, but I would focus on doing well and worry about making friends later. Every class is full of cliquish people. Don't worry about them. Good grades are worth a lot more than getting into somebody's smarmy little clique. Get good grades, show up for class ready to brief any of the cases if called upon, and don't try so hard to be friendly. I mean, there's nothing worse than somebody who latches onto you, desperate to be your friend. Just learn to ace the exams and go about your business. Friendships will follow.
FalconJimmy is right. I don't mean to be harsh, but if you really want to be an attorney, then instead of hoping that somebody else will pay your freight, you should be smart enough and creative enough to find a way to pay for it yourself.
« on: October 05, 2011, 03:36:07 PM »
IMO Jack is right. You can get everything you need by spending quality time with a canned brief, study guide, and perhaps scanning the case - will save 30% to 50% time reading and "learning." Spend the time you saved taking practice tests and applying the concepts. Do you really need to read an 8 page case to effectively learn and understand the concept of "open and obvious" in premises liability? The "black letter" series were excellent briefs for getting to the heart of things.
We've had this discussion before, but I always enjoy advocating for the other side. Sick in the head, perhaps. The platitudinous obvious, of course, is to do what works for you. With 1L under my belt, I can't deny that I don't feel the need to read every word of every case anymore. This is especially true on those eight-page cases where you take away a single rule of law that can be succinctly expressed in about eight words. In hindsight, some of that reading is probably a waste of time, particularly if your time needs to be budgeted. A canned brief can cut to the chase - and I made good use of canned briefs as a 1L, especially in contracts. (I don't want to intimate that I would never use a canned brief.) However, I was a much greener student last year than I am this year. Today, my case reading consists almost exclusively of speed reading through the facts and fluff to find that one-sentence rule of law or the two-pronged test that I'm going to need to apply to fact patterns on exams. But are most 1Ls equipped to assume such an abbreviated approach right from the start without having read any significant number of cases? Maybe, maybe not. It's a value judgment, granted. It's also a gamble. Learning to glean relevant information quickly from elaborate fact patterns takes practice. Canned briefs don't teach you how to brief. And being able to brief a fact pattern thoroughly is fundamental to writing a good paper. I have no regrets at all that I read all of the cases last year. Almost half of my 1L class didn't make it to 2L, and while the reasons are diverse, I don't know any 2Ls next to me who shortchanged the reading last year. After reading so many cases, you eventually arrive at a point where you can zip through them at speed and find the point that you need to take from it without having to read every single word comprehensively. Some people get there faster than others. But I would only caution 1Ls, especially early in the game, not to assume that they're smarter than the law school process. If reading the cases were not important to a well-rounded understanding of how to apply the law, then worthwhile law schools would not assign them to be read in the first place.
Parting thought. When called upon to brief cases in class, those who didn't survive 1L, together with those who placed in the bottom of the class, invariably just started reading the case aloud. And they'd read every freakin' bloody word until the professor mercifully stopped them. I used to marvel at this. God, I'd sit there squirming in silent agony at these high school reading-out-loud voices "briefing" the given case, and all I could think was, "Future attorney? Good luck." The students who placed at the top of the class never did that, including the book-briefers, like myself. I didn't have time to write out a formal brief for every case, although I tried to write at least one of my own for each class. Yet even by just book-briefing, a quick glance at the facts and the issue you've scrawled in the margin and you'd say, "Oh yeah, I remember this one. The guy did this and that. The issue was whether... The rule was... Overturned." 1, 2, 3. It's easy to tell when somebody has read the case at least once, and the whole class respects that person a lot more than the plain readers. However, the litmus test is, who did better on the exams? This becomes self-evident. Ultimately, the students who discipline themselves to do most or all of the reading will also discipline themselves to do the necessary practice tests and further, they'll get more mileage from every practice test they write than will those who skirt the reading.