Civ Pro Midterm Rules that should appear Flashcards
FR20
A plaintiff can bring in another defendant under FR20a2, if the claim 1. Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and 2. Same common question of law or fact. If this is satisfied, a court would look to see if there is appropriate jurisdiction under PJ, SMJ (1331, 1332) and 1367.
A plaintiff can bring in another plaintiff under FR20a1 if the claim 1. Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and 2. Same common question of law or fact. If this is appropriate then a court would look to see if there is appropriate jurisdiction under PJ, SMJ (1331, 1332) and 1367. (1332, Both jurisdictional amounts must exceed $75,000).
FR14
A defendant can assert a claim against a 3rd party defendant under FR14a1. Under this, there needs to be sufficient evidence that this claim has appropriate jurisdiction.
A plaintiff can assert a claim against a 3rd party defendant under FR14a3, as long as the claim arises out of same transaction or occurrence. If the 3rd party defendant is properly added, then the 3rd party defendant can assert a claim against the plaintiff under a counterclaim FR13a or 13b, or any cross claim against the defendant under FR13g. (Must make sure that diversity is not destroyed)
A 3rd party defendant can assert a claim against the plaintiff under FR14a2d, if the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence.
FR 8a2 and 12b6
A defendant party can use FR12b6 to dismiss based on failure to state a claim. To establish if the claim is adequate, the court would look to see if FR8a is satisfied.
Dioguardio introduced the concept of notice pleading, which is shown in FR8a, which requires 1. Statement of SMJ, 2. A “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief”, and 3. A demand for relief.
Under FR8a2, courts have interpreted this through Twombly and Iqbal. Under these two interpretations, the claim must have sufficient facts to show plausible entitlement to relief. The complaint cannot have conclusory statements, only statements that would make the claim plausible, and all facts are assumed to be true. A claim is plausible if the complaint contains factual content that allows the court to draw reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the proffered misconduct.
FR13
A defendant can assert a counterclaim against a plaintiff under FR13a and FR13b. FR13a states that the defendant must state this claim at the time of service, or else they have waived their right to bring forth a counterclaim. FR13a is satisfied when the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence. Under FR13b, can be brought as long as the claim is under the same transaction or occurrence.
Co-parties in an existing suit can bring forth another claim against another co-party under FR13g. FR13g allows co-parties to crossclaim when the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence of the anchor claim or counterclaim.
Supplemental under 1367
For a state created claim to ride into federal court within another claim, the court would have to establish a basis on how the state claim can ride in. To do so the court would use 1367a which is applied in Gibbs. Which states a common nucleus of operative fact, showing that both claims arise out of the same incident and facts. And1367b, which is statutory negation which is used within diversity jurisdiction. And 1367c which is based in discretion. Within discretion there are these elements that need to be satisfied; 1. Novel and complex 2. Substantially predominate 3. Cases already decided 4. Exceptional circumstances
If the anchor claim is under diversity and the plaintiff is trying to add in a defendant under FR14, 19, 20, 24. This would not be allowed because it could destroy complete diversity 1332.
If the anchor claim is under diversity and a 3rd party is trying to get in on the plaintiff’s side under FR 19,24, this would negate 1367b because it would destroy complete diversity.
