Subject Jdx 2

Question 1

Strategic considerations for P 1

Answer 1

state court/law will sometimes provide more protection

Question 2

Strategic considerations for P 2

Answer 2

FRCP in fed court, changes how broad discovery, pleading standard

Question 3

Strategic considerations for P 3

Answer 3

judges more familiar with type of case or lawyers more familiar with one system

Question 4

Strategic considerations for P 4

Answer 4

Rules of evidence differ, makeup of juries

Question 5

Strategic considerations for P 5

Answer 5

P can structure case to make it non-removable

Question 6

Ds sometimes ___ before ___

Answer 6

remove, been served (snap removal under 1441(b)(2)

Question 7

Statute about removal of class action

Answer 7

1453(b)

Question 8

1453(b)

Answer 8

class action can be removed to Fed court by any one D, don’t need consent of others. 1 yr limit doesn’t apply

Question 9

For class actions ___ is hotly contested and notice of removal needs only a___

Answer 9

venue, plausible allegation amount exceeds limit

Question 10

Since representatives cannot bind members of the proposed class before it is certified, they cannot prevent removal by ___

Answer 10

representing won’t seek damages in excess of threshold

Question 11

Home Depot rule

Answer 11

Third-party Ds may not remove an action under §1441 or §1453

Question 12

Home Depot reason 1

Answer 12

Context shows, the phrase “defendant” in 1441 and 1453 does not include third-party defendants. The FRCP differentiate between these types of defendants

Question 13

Home Depot reason 2

Answer 13

A counterclaim is irrelevant to whether the district court had original jurisdiction over the action.

Question 14

Home Depot reason 3

Answer 14

If defendants included third-party defendants, it would also include counterclaim defendants, i.e., plaintiffs, and that can’t be allowed. What would happen to the consent of all defendants removal rule?

Question 15

Supplemental jurisdiction stretches federal courts’ authority to encompass claims that do not fall within federal question or diversity jurisdiction but ____

Answer 15

closely related to such claims already before the court

Question 16

Gibbs is about

Answer 16

common nucleus of operative fact

Question 17

Gibbs rule

Answer 17

Jdx exists when there is a federal question claim where the relationship between it and the state claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact such that they would be expected to be tried all in one judicial proceeding.

Question 18

Gibbs holding

Answer 18

within fed court discretion to keep state law claim even once fed claim dropped

Question 19

Gibbs is codified in `

Answer 19

1367(a)

Question 20

Gibbs reason 1

Answer 20

if P’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues there is power in federal courts to hear the whole.

Question 21

Gibbs reason 2

Answer 21

“Judicial power shall extend to all cases - made up of multiple claims

Question 22

Gibbs reason 3

Answer 22

Once have Jdx, constitutionally okay to keep it (like timing of filing rule)

Question 23

Exceptions to Gibbs rule

Answer 23

If federal claims are dismissed before trial, state claims should be dismissed as well. If state issues substantially predominate, state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for state courts

Question 24

Common nucleus in Gibbs is much like

Answer 24

same transaction

Question 25

Malpractice not to bring state claims in state court and fed court if fed action because

Answer 25

potentially double recovery

Question 26

Federal courts can entertain third party impleader even if

Answer 26

breaks complete diversity

Question 27

Rationale behind okay for non-complete diversity if impleader

Answer 27

judicial efficiency and fairness to litigants by avoiding inconsistent judgments

Question 28

If third party impleader in Fed court under diversity jdx from same state as P, then P ___

Answer 28

cannot then bring a claim against the third-party defendant if there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim (either amount in controversy or diversity)

Question 29

FRCP cannot ____ jdx

Answer 29

create or withdraw

Question 30

Kroger rule

Answer 30

When Fed jdx is based on diversity, the court may not exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim against a third-party defendant if there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim

Question 31

Kroger reason 1

Answer 31

Gibbs doesn’t apply because no pendent jdx

Question 32

Kroger reason 2

Answer 32

Now that the original defendant is gone, there needs to be an independent basis of jurisdiction over D, which there is not

Question 33

Kroger reason 3

Answer 33

suit could not have been originally brought in fed court

Question 34

Kroger reason 4

Answer 34

PLs cannot flout requirements by suing only diverse DFs and waiting for them to implead non-diverse ones.

Question 35

Kroger reason 5

Answer 35

A third-party complaint depends at least in part on resolution of the primary lawsuit. These are now entirely separate and independent.

Question 36

Kroger reason 6

Answer 36

Constitutionally okay, but statute policy complete diversity

Question 37

Kroger reason 7

Answer 37

Choosing Fed Ct means foregoing some claims against some parties

Question 38

Kroger now codified in

Answer 38

1367(b)

Question 39

Statute about supplemental jdx

Answer 39

1367

Question 40

1367(a)

Answer 40

District courts have supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so related to the claims with original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. This includes claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. [Usually federal question cases]

Question 41

1367(b)

Answer 41

In diversity cases, district courts do not have supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14 (Impleader), 19 (Required Party Joinder), 20 (Party Joinder), or 24 (Intervention) or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 when it would destroy complete diversity.

Question 42

1367(c)

Answer 42

District court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under (a) if it (1) raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) substantially predominates over the claim that has original jurisdiction, (3) the claims with original jurisdiction have all been dismissed, or (4) other exceptional circumstances

Question 43

Allapattah rule

Answer 43

Where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, §1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of the other plaintiffs even if those claims are for less than the minimum amount in controversy.

Question 44

allapattah reason 1

Answer 44

The reason that we require complete diversity is to have a neutral forum – that same consideration does not apply to amount in controversy issues

Question 45

allapattah reason 2

Answer 45

§1367 says that Rule 19 (required) and 24 (intervening) plaintiffs may not be granted supplemental jurisdiction but specifically does not say anything about Rule 20 (permissive) or 23 (class action).

Question 46

Allapattah makes it ____ to remove class actions to fed court

Answer 46

easier