me me me me!
anyone else care to join?
anyone else care to join?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - dubsy
If a third party defendant is impleaded into an action - can that third party defendant assert claims that do NOT arise out of the same transaction/occurrence against either the plaintiff or defendant? I only see that Rule 14(a)(2)(D)and 14(a)(3) allow the plaintiff and third party defendant to assert claims against each other that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. But technically under Rule 18 anyone is allowed to join as many claims of whatever nature as long as they have some kind of claim going on, right?
« on: December 11, 2008, 07:04:20 PM »
ok so i know the holdings by heart: "beyond reasonable doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts" vs. "sufficient factual allegations to give plausibility to the underlying claim"... but what exactly does this mean? can someone give me some examples to differentiate the two pleading standards here? thanks.
this might sound really stupid because it's in plain english and doesn't seem complicated, but i don't understand the wording in the relation back amendment for parties:
"the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake as to the identity of the proper party, the original action would have been against him." (Rule 15c1c)
What exactly is this saying? Translation for my fried brain please?
i TOTALLY agree. i really did not like this textbook. and i'm kicking myself for outlining sooo much useless crap all semester from that book
Thoughts on Twombly?Twombly frustrates me. I guess the main thing to take from it would be that courts may be more willing to grant a 12(b)(6) in cases involving especially complex, costly litigation. ?
I'm reading glannon right now and have a question on his explanation of federal subject matter jurisdiction. He says that a case could be interpreted as "arising under" federal law as long as "one of the parties in the case would have to rely on federal law to establish either a claim or a defense in the lawsuit" (bottom p 67). However, I am positive that I just read a case the other day that established that it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to merely "predict" a potential defense that involves a federal question in an attempt to get federal subject matter jurisdiction.
what are yours?
- incessant tic-tac popping (i've gone through 8 boxes in the past 2 days
- a need for an obnoxious amount of lamp light
- at least 1 internet explorer window open for the occasional facebooking/gossip column/lsd'ing/etc.
- getting up every 20 minutes and coming up with some excuse for another study break.