Civ Pro Hypo - Please help!

[Julie Fern]

this eerie.

[iracafella]

julie, u have posted 26 thousand times. Are u actually a female, and if so, can u post pictures please

[iracafella]

okay, after some more research I conclude the following: yes your initial post seems on the dot correct to me. If compulsory, and SMJ was fine in the first place on the reliance on Fed Law, then there is no problem to what your answer was. The 75k for the other countersuing would not matter if compulsory. But is it possible in that hypo, that the 75k part was permissive, and the other counterclaim was compulsory? Exchange nat'l bank of chicago v. abramson, D.C. Minn 1968, 45 F.R.D. 97,  says that even if the amount for the 75k was not enough and dismissed for the amount in controversy, that would not stop a counterclaim against that person if other factors were fine.  so I think u are totally right, in other words. every thing u said in your answer covers all the bases. So yea, as long as the Fed claim was strong enough to not be substantially predominated by the state claim, then all other dominoes falling are perfectly fine as u said.

[Julie Fern]

julie, u have posted 26 thousand times. Are u actually a female, and if so, can u post pictures please

julie so glad you learning your numbers.  not sniff julie's booty, and one picture enough for prevert like you.

[AynRand]

Thanks for your help, guys - very much appreciated!

I apologize for the holes in the facts...I'm doing this from memory because we had to turn back in the fact pattern from the exam. Basically if I read it right the big thing was that there was no diversity on the counterclaim b/c of a diversity spoiler, so you had to look at other potential methods of SMJ.

Thanks again, especially to Julie.

[Duncanjp]

Thanks for your help, guys - very much appreciated!

I apologize for the holes in the facts...I'm doing this from memory because we had to turn back in the fact pattern from the exam. Basically if I read it right the big thing was that there was no diversity on the counterclaim b/c of a diversity spoiler, so you had to look at other potential methods of SMJ.

Thanks again, especially to Julie.

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.

[AynRand]

Thanks for your help, guys - very much appreciated!

I apologize for the holes in the facts...I'm doing this from memory because we had to turn back in the fact pattern from the exam. Basically if I read it right the big thing was that there was no diversity on the counterclaim b/c of a diversity spoiler, so you had to look at other potential methods of SMJ.

Thanks again, especially to Julie.

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.

Perfect. That was the line of reasoning I pursued in my answer, so you've helped to set my mind at ease (at  least until grades come out). Cheers!

[Julie Fern]

Thanks for your help, guys - very much appreciated!

I apologize for the holes in the facts...I'm doing this from memory because we had to turn back in the fact pattern from the exam. Basically if I read it right the big thing was that there was no diversity on the counterclaim b/c of a diversity spoiler, so you had to look at other potential methods of SMJ.

Thanks again, especially to Julie.

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.

julie sorry your powers comprehension limited.  maybe you from missouri.

maybe you doing too much scratching altogether.

let julie know if need anything explained.

[Duncanjp]

Okay, "Julie." I'll bite.

Are for what you purpose here?

[Julie Fern]

juie here spread joy and fight numbnuts.  not everyone?