Civ Pro I practice problems and hypos?

[intel]

i feel like i did awful on my K exam because i spent all my time studying the rules and didn't do any practice applying them via practice tests.

does anyone have Civ Pro I practice problems or hypos they want to share? i already have Glannon's E&E. i'm particularly in need of joinder/supplemental jurisdiction hypos.

thanks.

[KC#11]

i feel like i did awful on my K exam because i spent all my time studying the rules and didn't do any practice applying them via practice tests.

does anyone have Civ Pro I practice problems or hypos they want to share? i already have Glannon's E&E. i'm particularly in need of joinder/supplemental jurisdiction hypos.

thanks.

I'll make one up for you...

P (NY) v. D (MD) and O (VA) on a claim for a car accident seeking 80k joint and severally. D files a claim against O, and Z (NY). P amends to assert a claim against Z too. Z impleads V (NY) who, in turn, asserts a claim on P. P similarly asserts a claim V.

1. Can P bring the original suit based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?
2. Can D assert a claim against O based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?
3. Can D assert a claim against Z based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?
4. Can P assert a claim against Z based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?
5. Can V assert a claim against P based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?
6. Can P assert a claim against V based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?

Have fun.

[intel]

P (NY) v. D (MD) and O (VA) on a claim for a car accident seeking 80k joint and severally. D files a claim against O, and Z (NY). P amends to assert a claim against Z too. Z impleads V (NY) who, in turn, asserts a claim on P. P similarly asserts a claim V.

Thanks for the problems. Check my work:

1. Can P bring the original suit based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?

A: Rule 20 allows defendants to be joined who have claims asserted against them arising out of the same transaction (AST) AND a question of law or fact common to all Ds will arise in the action. Therefore, P's original suit is proper from a joinder perspective because D and O were involved in the same car accident (I assume) and so they both have claims asserted against them that arise from the same transaction (the accident) and a question of law or fact is common to them (who is responsible for the accident). Federal court has jurisdiction over any case between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75k. Here, federal court has jurisdiction because P is a citizen of NY, and both defendants are not citizens of NY (thus satisfying complete diversity) and each claim P has against each defendant exceeds $75k.

2. Can D assert a claim against O based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?

A: Rule 13 allows a party to assert any and all cross claims against a co-party, so any claim D has against O is fine from a joinder perspective. From a jurisdictional perspective, section 1367a allows a federal court that has original jurisdiction over one claim to hear all other claims that arise from a common nucleus of operative fact (CNOF) of the original claim. Such supplemental J includes claims that involve the joinder of parties. Thus, federal court has supplemental J over D's claim against O (assuming it is related to the car accident, otherwise it wouldn't arise from a CNOF) even if it does not exceed $75k, provided the court does not find reason to deny supp. J under 1367c.

3. Can D assert a claim against Z based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?

A: Rule 13 allows a defendant to join a party as another defendant via rule 20, and so D's claim against Z is proper under joinder rules if D's claim against Z AST as P's claim against D AND brings up a question of law or fact common to all defendants. The federal court also has supp. J over D's claim against Z because it arises from the same nucleus of operative fact that the original claim (P v. D) does.

4. Can P assert a claim against Z based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?

A: Rule 15 allows a party to amend their pleading once as a matter of course so the claim is fine under the rules. However, 1367b states that the court will not have supp. J over claims made by PLAINTIFFS against defendants made party by rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 when the courts original jurisdiction is based solely on diversity and the claim would destroy complete diversity. Here, the anchor claim is diversity, and Z was made a party by rule 20 (when D joined him), and he is also from NY (as is P) so complete diversity would be destroyed. Thus, the court would not have supplemental J over P's claim against Z.

5. Can V assert a claim against P based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?

A: Rule 14 allows a third party defendant (which V now is) to assert any claim it has against the plaintiff, so V's claim against P is fine as a joinder issue. Don't know about supp J...can someone help me here?

6. Can P assert a claim against V based on the rules/jurisdiction, etc.?

A: Rule 14 allows a plaintiff to assert any claim against a third party defendant (here, V) if the claim AST as P's claim against the third party plaintiff (here, Z). Z has impleaded V, implying that V is liable for indemnity to Z for P's claim. Thus, P's claim against V not only AST as P's claim against Z, it is the same claim. So Ps claim against V is fine under the joinder rules. However, 1367b states that the court will not have supp. J over claims made by PLAINTIFFS against defendants made party by rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 when the courts original jurisdiction is based solely on diversity and the claim would destroy complete diversity. Here, the anchor claim is diversity, and V was made a party by rule 14 (when Z impleaded him), and he is also from NY (as is P) so complete diversity would be destroyed. Thus, the court would not have supplemental J over P's claim against v.

[KC#11]

#1 looks good.

#2: This is a 13(g) cross-claim, and -- as such -- can only be asserted if it arises out of the same transaction and occurrence (so its not quite true that 13 allows a party to assert "any and all cross claims"). Assuming it was proper under 13(g) (which isn't a given based on the facts...and deliberately so), supplemental jurisdiction would exist under 1367 because it forms the same CNOF and doesn't fall into the exceptions outlined in 1367(b) (not a claim by a P, etc.)

N.B. If the amount in controversy for the claim was over 75,000 1367 wouldn't be necessary

#3: This is a 13(h) claim, and you correctly state the rule as to the rule although your description seems based on the new version that just went into effect. In any event, your analysis is right.

#4: Not sure I agree with you here, but I don't think there's a deliberate answer. I wrote it this way, because I think an argument can be made for the fact that this party (Z) is not "joined under R.20" but is actually "joined under R.13." If the latter were true, supplementary jurisdiction would be appropriate. Your analysis would be appropriate if the former were true. I think the new version of the rules is more closely aligned with your reading of it, while the old version supports the alternative reason...I think either argument works, frankly, but definitely think it's important to make both.

#5: A third-party D can only assert a claim against the original P if it arises out of the same transaction and occurrence as the original claim. If it does here, then supplementary jurisdiction would be fine because it forms the same CNOF and isn't touched by 1367(b).

#6: Rule 14 only authorizes the original P to bring a suit against the third-party D if it arises out of the same transaction and occurrence. Incidentally, if this claim WERE authorized under 14, it would also (by necessity) be authorized under 13(a) which calls for compulsory counterclaims for those claims relating to the same transaction and occurrence. As such, it would form the same CNOF under 1367(a), but -- as you correctly note -- 1367(b) presents a problem for the reasons you mention.

[The Decider]

N.B. If the amount in controversy for the claim was over 75,000 1367 wouldn't be necessary

Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

[KC#11]

N.B. If the amount in controversy for the claim was over 75,000 1367 wouldn't be necessary

Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

D and O are diverse parties. If the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 for this particular claim, there would be an independent basis of SMJ.

[The Decider]

N.B. If the amount in controversy for the claim was over 75,000 1367 wouldn't be necessary

Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

D and O are diverse parties. If the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 for this particular claim, there would be an independent basis of SMJ.

Under what statute do they have an independent basis of SMJ?

[KC#11]

N.B. If the amount in controversy for the claim was over 75,000 1367 wouldn't be necessary

Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

D and O are diverse parties. If the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 for this particular claim, there would be an independent basis of SMJ.

Under what statute do they have an independent basis of SMJ?

28 U.S.C. 1332 (diversity jurisdiction)

[The Decider]

N.B. If the amount in controversy for the claim was over 75,000 1367 wouldn't be necessary

Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

D and O are diverse parties. If the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 for this particular claim, there would be an independent basis of SMJ.

Under what statute do they have an independent basis of SMJ?

28 U.S.C. 1332 (diversity jurisdiction)

I thought $75k+ was required for diversity in 1332, not an independent basis. EDIT: it says 75k ... "and is between"

[KC#11]

N.B. If the amount in controversy for the claim was over 75,000 1367 wouldn't be necessary

Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

D and O are diverse parties. If the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 for this particular claim, there would be an independent basis of SMJ.

Under what statute do they have an independent basis of SMJ?

28 U.S.C. 1332 (diversity jurisdiction)

I guess I thought $75k+ was required for diversity in 1332, not an independent basis.

75k+ is needed. I was saying that if the AIC for that particular claim exceeded 75k there would be an independent basis for SMJ (without needing supplemental jurisdiction) because the parties were diverse and the requirements of 1332 were met. Follow?