Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Civ Pro Question  (Read 1909 times)

gershonw

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2008, 08:34:34 PM »

And apparently federal civil procedures is the ONLY thing I'm ready to be tested for on the bar exam.

i gotta wonder why bar administrations see it necessary to test federal procedure? i dont really care so much becuase i happen to like it. but it still seems weird.

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2008, 09:21:31 PM »
I don't quite know. I think it's part of a knee jerk thing?  They figure you get tested on all first year subjects, so they may as well throw federal civ pro in the mix?

I do wish they'd choose between state and fed civ pro though.  The rules are so similar, yet so incredible different.  It's extremely hard to keep straight, at least for me.  I've got the fed civ pro down pretty well, but just can't seem to get the state rules in my brain too. 

008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2008, 12:06:51 AM »
supplemental J is T&O but you cant force a P to implead a party you want to sue but don't have diversity with and assert a claim against them.

What are you talking about?  Impleader is done by a Defendant for the purpose of seeking contribution or indemnification.    Furthermore, the plaintiff's citizenship is irrelevant for impleader, because it's a claim by a defendant.  And the third party the defendant is trying to implead is never an indispensible party, because the defendant will have their own separate claim arising against the third party if the defendant is actually found liable in the original action.  Finally, supplemental jurisdiction is only unavailable when the PLAINTIFF tries to add a claim that destroys diversity; a defendant can make claims that would otherwise destroy diversity because we're only concerned with the plaintiff trying to make an end run around federal diversity jurisdiction requirements.

The only other time you have to worry about diversity of citizenship when you have impleader is when the plaintiff is trying to assert a crossclaim against the third party defendant.  This is under the limitation of a PLAINTIFF asserted supplemental jurisdiction that violates complete diversity.





And apparently federal civil procedures is the ONLY thing I'm ready to be tested for on the bar exam.

wow.  that's impressive.  This test is going to give me a heart attack.
When a candidate faces the voters he does not face men of sense [but] a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion. As democracy is perfected the White House will be adorned with a moron.

unlvcrjchick

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2008, 03:55:35 AM »
supplemental J is T&O but you cant force a P to implead a party you want to sue but don't have diversity with and assert a claim against them.

What are you talking about?  Impleader is done by a Defendant for the purpose of seeking contribution or indemnification.    Furthermore, the plaintiff's citizenship is irrelevant for impleader, because it's a claim by a defendant.  And the third party the defendant is trying to implead is never an indispensible party, because the defendant will have their own separate claim arising against the third party if the defendant is actually found liable in the original action.  Finally, supplemental jurisdiction is only unavailable when the PLAINTIFF tries to add a claim that destroys diversity; a defendant can make claims that would otherwise destroy diversity because we're only concerned with the plaintiff trying to make an end run around federal diversity jurisdiction requirements.

The only other time you have to worry about diversity of citizenship when you have impleader is when the plaintiff is trying to assert a crossclaim against the third party defendant.  This is under the limitation of a PLAINTIFF asserted supplemental jurisdiction that violates complete diversity.





And apparently federal civil procedures is the ONLY thing I'm ready to be tested for on the bar exam.


wow.  that's impressive.  This test is going to give me a heart attack.


It'll only give you a heart attack if you LET them give it to you. I'm just going to go in there and say (to myself obviously) "f*ck the bar examiners! They are NOT smarter than I!"  After all, in the grand scheme of things, this is just one other test that we have to take, and it's not the end of the world even if we do fail it.

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2008, 07:53:58 AM »


wow.  that's impressive.  This test is going to give me a heart attack.

*Maybe* that was impressive.  But if you saw my torts essays, you'd realize how much trouble I'm in.  I'm dreading a torts question (and praying for some kind of civ pro question), but i feel like so many other people are praying for the opposite, that they'll "out-vote" me to God or something.   :P

008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2008, 09:14:45 PM »
Seriously, I went to the doctor a week ago because of chest pain.  They said it was stress  :-\ phew
When a candidate faces the voters he does not face men of sense [but] a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion. As democracy is perfected the White House will be adorned with a moron.

derby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2008, 09:50:28 AM »
do law students really have to be such jerks?
I meant to write D instead of P. Meaning I cant sue someone  and not another although I know that they will become a 3rd party D and then try and bring a claim against them although there is no diversity.
Sorry I wrote it the wrong way first. I guess it gave people a chance to be self righteous and I suppose thats all that matters sometimes.

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2008, 09:59:17 AM »
do law students really have to be such jerks?
I meant to write D instead of P. Meaning I cant sue someone  and not another although I know that they will become a 3rd party D and then try and bring a claim against them although there is no diversity.
Sorry I wrote it the wrong way first. I guess it gave people a chance to be self righteous and I suppose thats all that matters sometimes.

Defensive much?  What you wrote didn't make sense, so I prefaced my response with "what are you talking about?"  because I completely didn't understand and it was contrary to what I'd studied.

Correcting something that's wrong isn't being self-righteous, especially when it's in the context answering someone's question asking for clarification.  Regardless of whether you got the law wrong or just a glaring typo that made your statement very wrong, correcting that in a thread where someone is asking for clarification isn't about being a jerk or being self-righteous.  It's about correcting a wrong statement of law, period.  Getting defensive just shows that you can't handle being corrected.

You should chill out.

derby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2008, 02:30:09 PM »
I was referring to the person who responded in CAPS? asking "what are you talking about?" when its obvious what I was talking about, just that it was incorrect.
the tone seemed snide, but I am probably wrong again.

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2008, 02:56:17 PM »
I was referring to the person who responded in CAPS? asking "what are you talking about?" when its obvious what I was talking about, just that it was incorrect.
the tone seemed snide, but I am probably wrong again.

To clarify, *I* was the only person who asked "what are you talking about," (unless someone deleted, which happens quite a lot), but I didn't do it in all caps.