SMJ
P (Mass.) sues D (Vermont) in Vermont federal district court and alleges a state law cause of action and damages of exactly 75K.
Does subject matter jurisdiction exist?
No
Does not meet amount in controversy. Needs to exceed 75K
A sues B in state court (no diversity or federal question jurisdiction). Two years later, A amends her complaint and adds C as a defendant, alleging a federal cause of action against C that is related to the claim against B. C and B remove the case within thirty days of the amendment.
Would removal be proper?
Yes
The case became removable and is timely removed.
During a construction project, a worker dies as a result of negligence by company A, the general contractor at the site. At the same time, the owner of the property is concerned that company A has breached its contract with the owner by charging the owner more than the contract specified. Assume that there is subject matter and personal jurisdiction over all claims.
Can the worker’s estate and the owner of the property sue company A together in the same case in federal court?
No
Rule 20 (Permissive Joinder) requires the same transaction and common issue of law/fact.
A plaintiff sues two defendants, D1 and D2, for injuries arising out of a 3-way car accident. D2 could have alleged a cross-claim against D1, but decides not to do so. The case goes to trial, and the plaintiff wins against both D1 and D2. D2 now files his own claim against D1, alleging that D1 is liable for the injuries that D2 suffered in the accident.
Does claim preclusion apply?
No
Cross-claims are permissive.
Assume a state passes a statute that says that a railroad is only liable for injuries that occur to pedestrians if the plaintiff can show that the railroad engaged in willful or wanton misconduct. Also assume that, although the federal government regulates railroads generally and could regulate liability of this sort, Congress has not adopted any provision on this subject. A case is brought in federal court by a pedestrian injured by a railroad.
After Erie, what substantive law would apply (state law or federal common law?
Follow state law
P sues D for $20,000 for an accident claim, $30,000 for libel, and $40,000 for a contract breach.
Is the amount in controversy requirement met?
Yes
May add together all claims against the defendant.
The Mottleys, from Kentucky, sue the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, incorporated in Kentucky with its principal place of business in Kentucky, for breach of contract for refusing to renew the Mottleys’ free passes on the railroad. The Railroad answers the complaint, raising the defense that a new federal statute bars giving free passes. It then removes to federal court. The case will be remanded to state court.
True
The Mottleys could not have brought the original case into federal court, so it cannot be removed.
A sues B for breach of contract in federal district court. B counterclaims against A, alleging that A hit B in a car accident unrelated to A’s breach of contract case. Assume that the federal court would have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over both claims.
Do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow A and B to litigate their claims in the same case?
Yes
This is a permissive counterclaim under 13(b)
Honshu Motors makes all-terrain vehicles in Japan and imports them to a Texas dealership, El Paso Motors, and to an Oklahoma dealership. Tuoni comes to the Texas dealership and explains that she needs a sturdy ATV that will work on the sand hills of Oklahoma, where she lives and plans to use the ATV. El Paso sells a Honshu ATV off the lot to Tuoni. She is injured using it in Oklahoma and sues El Paso in Oklahoma for her injury. The Oklahoma court will have personal jurisdiction over El Paso for this claim.
True/False
False
P and D sign a contract in Massachusetts. The contract was allegedly breached in Maine. P is a citizen of NH, and D is a citizen of VT. P sues in Connecticut state court. The choice of law rules are as follows: CT says use the law of the state where the K was signed. MA says use the law of the state where the K was breached.
Which state’s substantive law applies?
Massachusetts
Alice (NY) sues John (Alaska) and Joan (Missouri) in Missouri state court under state tort law. Alice seeks in excess of $75,000. Assuming John gets Joan’s permission, would removal be proper?
Would removal be proper?
No
Forum Defendant Rule
Parsons, from Vermont, sues Tremain, from Maine, and Puzo, from Michigan, for injuries that she alleges they caused in an accident that happened in Vermont. Parsons seeks $250,000 in damages. Suit is brought in state court in Maine.
Can this suit be removed to federal court?
No
The case is based on diversity and the forum defendant rule is triggered.
Dickens, from Colorado, sues Hardy, from South Dakota, in federal court for injuries suffered in an accident that took place in South Dakota. Hardy impleads Wolfe, driver of a third car, under Rule 14(a) claiming that, if he is held liable to Dickens, Wolfe should reimburse him (Hardy) for half of the judgment in favor of Dickens, under the tort doctrine of contribution. Dickens now amends her complaint to assert a claim directly against Wolfe for her (Dickens’s) injuries in the accident.
What rule authorizes this claim?
14(a)(3) - Plaintiff Claim against 3rd party defendant
Merzon sues Annapolle in federal court for breach of contract to build a house for him. The breach took place in April 2015. The limitations period on the claim is two years. Merzon brings suit a week before the two-year period runs. In July 2017 Merzon moves to amend to add a claim against Annapolle for negligence in repairing his yacht. The negligent repair claim also arose in April 2015. The negligence claim has a three-year limitations period. Because the negligence claim arises out of unrelated events, it will be barred. True/False
False
Since the SOL has not run on the negligence claim, it does not need to relate back under Rule 15.
Identify the name of the rule for this doctrine:
A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits (i.e., the forum state).
The Klaxon rule
Zack has a breach of contract claim against Acme Corporation because Acme failed to pay Zack his commission on pharmaceuticals that he sold. Acme is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Hampshire. Zack was the exclusive sales representative for western Massachusetts and earned substantial commissions on sales to corporations located in Massachusetts. The courts of New Hampshire will have specific personal jurisdiction over Acme for Zack’s claim.
False
General Jurisdiction: New Hampshire & Delaware
Specific Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
A (Mass.) sues B (Mass.) and C (NH) in Massachusetts state court and alleges state law causes of action and damages in excess of $75,000 against each defendant. Six months later, A voluntarily dismisses B. Within 30 days of dismissal, C removes the case.
If A moves to remand the case within 30 days of removal, will the motion to remand be granted?
No
Now that B is gone, the case is removable on diversity jurisdiction w/in 30-days and C doesn't need permission because B is gone.
Alcott, from Massachusetts, brings an action in federal court against Stowe, from Connecticut, and Morrison, from New Jersey, for breach of contract, claiming that she paid them $200,000 to invest for her and they made off with it. Stowe asserts a claim for contribution against Morrison, and adds Walker, from Georgia, who had taken part of the funds, as an additional party to the contribution claim. Joinder of all the claims is proper. True/False?
True
Rule 13(h) allows for a party to be joined in a counterclaim if it satisfies Rules 19 or 20.
Whitney sues Lee for negligence in causing an auto accident. Lee denies negligence, and asserts that contributory negligence of Whitney (a complete defense under applicable law) also caused the accident. The case is tried to the judge without a jury. She finds that Lee was negligent in causing the accident and Whitney was not. Accordingly, the judge awards damages to Whitney.
Now Jiang, a passenger in Lee’s car at the time of the accident, sues Whitney for his injuries in the same accident. Whitney answers Jiang's complaint denying that she was negligent, and invokes issue preclusion to preclude Jiang from trying to prove that she was. The court will not apply issue preclusion to bar Jiang from litigating Whitney’s negligence.
True/False
True
Jiang has not yet litigated the issue w/ Whitney. Due process allows him the chance to do so.
Tompkins brings a negligence action against the Erie Railroad in a New York federal court after he is hit by a train in Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania law railroads only owe a duty to avoid willful or wanton misconduct toward a trespasser. New York tort law holds that railroads owe trespassers a duty of due care when they are walking along the tracks.
However, a New York state court would apply Pennsylvania law to an accident that happened in Pennsylvania. In tort cases it applies a “place of the injury” choice of law rule and applies the tort law of the place of the injury.
What rule will the NY federal court apply?
Willful or wanton rule
because a New York state court would, applying the New York choice of law rule for torts
Alice (NY) sues John (Alaska) and Joan (Missouri) in Missouri state court under a federal statute. Alice seeks in excess of $75,000.
Would removal be proper?
Yes
In Federal Question Jurisdiction, the forum defendant rule does not apply.
Guerrero, from California, is seriously injured in a forklift accident while working in Arizona. She sues the forklift manufacturer, General Products Company, in an Arizona state court for negligence, seeking $1,000,000 in damages. General Products is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. General Products removes the case to federal court.
Unfortunately, the federal district to which the case is removed has a heavy docket. The court is unlikely to be able to try Guerrero’s case for at least two years. Guerrero is seriously debilitated by her injury and heavily in debt; she really needs a speedy recovery. Her counsel therefore moves to remand to state court, which could reach the case for trial much more quickly. The federal court will deny the motion.
Yes
The case was properly removed and will be heard there even though the plaintiff has strong practical reasons for wanting it in state court.
Alcott, from Massachusetts, brings an action in federal court against Stowe, from Connecticut, and Morrison, from New Jersey, for breach of contract, claiming that she paid them $200,000 to invest for her and they made off with it. Stowe asserted a claim for contribution against Morrison, claiming that if she is held liable to Alcott (and pays the judgment) that Morrison should reimburse her for half of the judgment. Morrison has her own claim against Stowe, claiming that Stowe took the entire amount for her own use. She also has a claim against Bronte, who she claims assisted Stowe in making off with the funds.
Is the claim Morrison has against Stowe permissive or compulsory?
What rule allows Bronte to be brought into the suit?
1. Compulsory
2. 13(h)
Timmons sues Garza in federal court for negligence in an auto accident. At trial, Timmons presents evidence on each element of the claim, including negligence. After Timmons “rests” (concludes presentation of the case), Garza moves for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Timmons’s evidence that Garza was negligent is too weak to support a verdict in Timmons’s favor. The judge denies the motion, and Garza presents her evidence, trying to establish that Timmons’s negligence caused the accident instead. After presenting her case and at the close of all of the evidence, Garza again makes a motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing insufficient evidence of negligence. The case goes to the jury, which returns a verdict for Timmons. Having twice moved for judgment as a matter of law, Garza may not move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) after the verdict.
True/False
False
There is nothing stopping repeat motions for a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) even with previous denials.
Under the state supreme court predictive approach, a federal court could refuse to apply a state supreme court decision directly on point to a state law issue before the federal court, if the federal judge concludes that the state supreme court would rule differently on the issue today. True/false
True