1 / 19

Spring 1993 Exam

Spring 1993 Exam. Paul’s Citizenship. Born in US. MO. parents domiciled MO. of his birth in MO. MO. No residence in HI. No intent to indef’ly reside in OR. US because _________________. At birth, he’s a citizen of ______. Because _____________________. Not because __________________.

shauna
Download Presentation

Spring 1993 Exam

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Spring 1993 Exam

  2. Paul’s Citizenship Born in US MO parents domiciled MO of his birth in MO MO No residence in HI No intent to indef’ly reside in OR • US because _________________. • At birth, he’s a citizen of ______. • Because _____________________. • Not because __________________. • During college in OR, he was a citizen of ____ because • ____________________________ & • ______________________________

  3. Paul’s Citizenship MO No residence in HI yet HI Now he has a residence in HI He intends to indef’ly reside there time of filing MO • On 1/1/92, citizen of ____ because • __________________________ . • On 4/30/92, citizen of ____ because • ____________________________ & • ______________________________ • Since citizenship is determined at _______________, Paul is a _____ citizen for purposes of this suit.

  4. Citizenship of Dan & Firm KS the problem says so makes no difference MO, KS & HI Partnerships have the citizenship of all their partners • Dan is a citizen of ______ • Because ______________________ • His PPB ______________________. • The firm is a citizen of ____________ • Because ______________________ ______________________________

  5. #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

  6. #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.

  7. #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?)

  8. #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?)

  9. #3 Dan v. Firm (3PC Malpractice) Is there diversity jurisdiction? • Complete diversity not met • Dan = KS • Firm = MO / KS / HI • So, no diversity jurisdiction.

  10. #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

  11. #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?

  12. #4 Dan v. Firm (Shoes) No Diversity Jurisdiction (See #3)

  13. #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.

  14. #5 Firm v. Dan (Fees) Is there diversity jurisdiction? • Complete diversity not met • Firm = MO / KS / HI • Dan = KS • So, no diversity jurisdiction.

  15. #5 Firm v. Dan (Fees) • Gibbs Test Re Claim 3 • Fed Jur (Supp) over claim #3 • Common nucleus of operative facts • Both must decide whether Firm provided good or bad advice • Expect to try 2 claims together in unified system of courts • Like any Claim & CC for breach of K • Gibbs Test Re Claim 1 • Fed Jur (Diversity) over claim #1 • Common nucleus of operative facts • Not so clear • Expect to try 2 claims together in unified system of courts • Not clear at all • 1367 supplemental jurisdiction: • Gibbs (case or controversy) test: • What is the “original claim” (piggyback supplemental j)? • #1 (ct has diversity j)? • #3 (ct has supplemental j)? • Need to analyze separately

  16. #6 Firm v. Paul (Slander) Is there diversity jurisdiction? • Complete diversity not met • Firm = MO / KS / HI • Paul = MO • So, no diversity jurisdiction.

  17. #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?

  18. #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?

  19. #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

More Related