Transcript Spring 1993 Exam

Spring
1993
Exam
Paul’s Citizenship
Born in US
• US because _________________.
MO
• At birth, he’s a citizen of ______.
parents domiciled MO
–Because _____________________.
–Not because __________________.
of his birth in MO
• During college in OR, he was a
MO because
citizen of ____
No residence in HI
–____________________________
&
No intent to indef’ly reside in OR
–______________________________
Paul’s Citizenship
• On 1/1/92, citizen of ____
MO because
No residence in HI yet
– __________________________
.
HI because
• On 4/30/92, citizen of ____
–____________________________
&
Now he has a residence in HI
He intends to indef’ly reside there
–______________________________
• Since citizenship is determined at
time of filing
MO
_______________,
Paul is a _____
citizen for purposes of this suit.
Citizenship of Dan & Firm
• Dan is a citizen of ______
KS
the problem says so
–Because ______________________
makes no difference
–His PPB ______________________.
• The firm is a citizen of ____________
MO, KS & HI
Partnerships have the
–Because ______________________
citizenship of all their partners
______________________________
#1 Paul v. Dan (Age Discrimination)
• Fed J OK based on
–Diversity
• Complete Diversity Met
–P = MO; D=KS
• Amt in Controversy Met
–More than $75K alleged
–Good faith $80K claim since
–Not clear to legal certainty
that it couldn’t be recovered
#2 Dan v. Paul (CC for Conversion)
Is there diversity jurisdiction?
• Complete diversity met
–Dan = KS; Paul = MO
• Amt in controversy not met
–Less than $75K alleged
• So, no diversity jurisdiction.
#2 Dan v. Paul (CC for Conversion)
1367 supplemental jurisdiction met:
– Gibbs (case or controversy) test:
–Ct has non-frivolous (valid) claim of
fed jur over original claim
–Diversity see above
–Common nucleus of operative facts
–Evidence of why fired
–Expect to try 2 claims together in
unified system of courts (Why?)
#2 Dan v. Paul (CC for Conversion)
1367 supplemental jurisdiction
(Continued)
– Statutory exceptions?
–Do not apply (Why not?)
– Discretionary factor?
–Do not apply (Why not?)
#3 Dan v. Firm (3PC Malpractice)
Is there diversity jurisdiction?
• Complete diversity not met
–Dan = KS
–Firm = MO / KS / HI
• So, no diversity jurisdiction.
#3 Dan v. Firm (3PC Malpractice)
1367 supplemental jurisdiction met:
– Gibbs (case or controversy) test:
–Ct has div jur over original claim (#1)
–Common nucleus of operative facts
–Since both require deciding
whether Dan is liable to
(discriminated against) Paul
–Expect to try 2 claims together in
unified system of courts
#3 Dan v. Firm (3PC Malpractice)
1367 supplemental jurisdiction
(Continued)
– Statutory exceptions?
–Bars claims against R14 3PD’s
–But only if made by P’s
–So doesn’t apply here
– Discretionary factors?
#4 Dan v. Firm (Shoes)
No Diversity Jurisdiction
(See #3)
#4 Dan v. Firm (Shoes)
1367 supplemental jurisdiction :
– Gibbs (case or controversy) test:
–Ct has div jur over original claim (#1)
–Common nucleus of operative facts
–None apparent
–No connection between original
claim & supplemental claim
–If a claim flunks Gibbs, it flunks
supplemental jurisdiction.
#5 Firm v. Dan (Fees)
Is there diversity jurisdiction?
• Complete diversity not met
–Firm = MO / KS / HI
–Dan = KS
• So, no diversity jurisdiction.
#5 Firm v. Dan (Fees)
Test Re Claim
3
1
1367Gibbs
supplemental
jurisdiction:
– Fed
Jur (Diversity)
(Supp)
over
over
claim
claim
#3 #1
– Gibbs
(case or
controversy)
test:
– Common
of operative
–What nucleus
is the “original
claim”facts
–Both
–Not
so
must
cleardecide
whether Firm
(piggyback
supplemental
j)?
provided
good
or
bad
advice
– Expect
to (ct
try
2 claims
together
– #1
has
diversity
j)? in
– unified
Expect
to
system
try has
2 claims
ofsupplemental
courts
together in
– #3
(ct
j)?
unified
system
of courts
– Not– clear
at
all
Need to analyze separately
– Like any Claim & CC for breach of
K
#6 Firm v. Paul (Slander)
Is there diversity jurisdiction?
• Complete diversity not met
–Firm = MO / KS / HI
–Paul = MO
• So, no diversity jurisdiction.
#6 Firm v. Paul (Slander)
1367 supplemental jurisdiction :
– Gibbs (case or controversy) test:
–Ct has div jur over original claim (#1)
–Common nucleus of operative facts?
–Both deal generally with facts of
firing
–Is that enough?
–Expect to try 2 claims together?
–What do you think?
#6 Firm v. Paul (Slander)
1367 supplemental jurisdiction (cont):
– Statutory Exceptions?
– Discretionary factors?
–No novel issue of state law
–Supp case might predominate
– How much “crook evidence”?
–Original claims still pending
–Other compelling reasons
– Will court order separate trials?
#7 Paul v. Firm (Conspiracy)
• Diversity jurisdiction?
• Gibbs test?
• Statutory exceptions (1367(b))
–Original case is diversity
–Suit by P v. 3PD
–Inconsistent with diversity
• No supplemental jurisdiction