How to Analyze Supplemental Jurisdiction on a Civil Procedure Essay (🚨 See below for update)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 сер 2018
- 🚨 UPDATED VERSION OF THIS VIDEO: • Civil Procedure: Suppl...
We're in the process of updating our Civil Procedure video lecture series. The updated version of this video is now available here: • Civil Procedure: Suppl...
🚨 CORRECTION (21:18 to 21:40): Under 28 U.S. Code § 1367(c), a federal court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim (including a compulsory counterclaim) if: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the federal court has original jurisdiction, (3) the federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
A "compulsory" counterclaim is compulsory, because a pleading MUST state as a counterclaim any claim that-at the time of its service-the pleader has against an opposing party. A "permissive" counterclaim is permissive, because a pleading MAY state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.
📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/law-school
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/bar-exam
Free courses: studicata.com/free-courses
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/groups/community
Testimonials: studicata.com/testimonials-an...
Submit a review: shoutout.studicata.com
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/android
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: info@studicata.com
Learn more: studicata.com
-
🎬 VIDEO INFO
How to Analyze Supplemental Jurisdiction on a Civil Procedure Essay
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide a case before it.
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court with valid subject matter jurisdiction over a case to hear additional claims over which the court would NOT independently have jurisdiction if ALL the claims constitute the same case or controversy. Claims constitute the “same case or controversy” if they arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact (meaning all the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence).
FEDERAL QUESTION CASES
A federal court sitting in federal question jurisdiction may hear a pendent state law claim under supplemental jurisdiction if the state law claim arises out the same transaction or occurrence as the federal law claim.
DIVERSITY CASES
There are three types of claims where supplemental jurisdiction is commonly tested in diversity cases: compulsory counterclaims, permissive counterclaims, and cross-claims.
A compulsory counterclaim is a counterclaim (usually the defendant countersuing the plaintiff) that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim filed. A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction has supplemental jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim.
A permissive counterclaim is a counterclaim (usually the defendant countersuing the plaintiff) that does NOT arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim filed. A permissive counterclaim can only be heard if it independently satisfies diversity jurisdiction.
A cross-claim is a claim filed by a plaintiff against another plaintiff or by a defendant against a co-defendant. A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction has supplemental jurisdiction over a cross-claim if the cross-claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim.
Learn more: studicata.com
![How to Analyze Personal Jurisdiction on a Civil Procedure Essay [SCOTUS UPDATE: See Description]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OHNBLiemiLg/mqdefault.jpg)
Learned what my prof. taught in 12 weeks in one hour of youtube.
I think profs mostly like to hear themselves talk.
Lol.. I just hollered!! 🤣😂
Unquestionably THE best explanation of how to analyze supplemental jurisdiction on a civil procedure essay! Clear, concise, straight forward from beginning to end. This short video cleared up years of confusion on this particular segment of civil procedure for me. Seriously people, better than Barbri, Themis and sorry to say, but true, Kaplan as well. Do yourself a favor. Watch this video and its sister parts. You will be glad you did. Great job on this video!!!!
Thank you! Supplemental jurisdiction is usually a tough issue for most law students. I'm happy this video helped clear up some of the confusion for you!
It really did! I totally get it now! TY
@@studicata I'm currently in Civil Procedures I. I really appreciate your videos, they provide an clearer understanding of the subject matter. However, I noticed you didn't touch on the exceptions under Supplemental Jurisdiction. My professor states that you could have supplemental jurisdiction if the anchor claim falls under Federal Question or Diversity, but you would have to first look through the exceptions. If you get one "no" for any of the exceptions, only then do you have supplement jurisdiction. Would you be able to expound on this?
0😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
I'm a framework-oriented thinker, which means that I need to conceptualize the big picture before I can understand specific topics. these videos have saved my life. I take the overall structure (what's a fed court need to have authority over a case? - smj, pj, and venue) and then I slot in the details about specific topics that my professor highlights. thank you so much.
(also, okayyy ring light)
I concur - I like to see the forest before the trees, so to speak. Thanks for tuning in!
@@studicata yes, this is a perfect description of how I learn as well. Never knew how to articulate. Thus, thank you both. & thanks Studicata for providing these vides. I am currently studying for the Bar exam and the way themis explains civil procedure is not for me. It actually made me more confused. Now I am starting to see the light. Really wish I signed up for studicata rather than themis.
After four years of law school, I finally understand this concept? Thank you!
You are the best.....i was so confused 3 weeks away frfom an exam that looked impossible to pass
I have no idea why these videos aren't more poppin, especially right before the bar! Keep it up man
How do I send this guy flowers? This beats the shit out of Barbri.
Compulsory counterclaiims are different from permissive ones in several ways. 1) The court doesn't have to do a jurisdictional analysis over compulsory counterclaims [they have jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims automatically], and 2) If you don't bring compulsory counterclaims in your answer, then your right to sue over those claims is waived. See Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Company 358 F.3d 205 (2004).
Came here to say this 👍🏼
OMG! Why didn't I find you 5 years ago???!!! BRILLIANT! DOWN-TO-EARTH BEST EXPLANATION EVER! Why do they make it sooooo complicated! And to think we spend so much money on all that other rubbish...with-heads-stuck-up-big-box-prep-course-lectures!!! AAAARGGGHHH!!! THANK YOU! AND GOD BLESS YOU!
You are brilliant, thank you for taking the time to make these clear videos. Very helpful.
Thank you! It truly makes my day to know that these videos are helping some of you out.
I am definitely using you guys for bar prep! You are a total LIFE SAVER!
🚨 CORRECTION (21:18 to 21:40): Under 28 U.S. Code § 1367(c), a federal court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim (including a compulsory counterclaim) if: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the federal court has original jurisdiction, (3) the federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
A "compulsory" counterclaim is compulsory, because a pleading MUST state as a counterclaim any claim that-at the time of its service-the pleader has against an opposing party. A "permissive" counterclaim is permissive, because a pleading MAY state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.
🚨 UPDATED VERSION OF THIS VIDEO: ua-cam.com/video/6JHji7ByO_4/v-deo.html
Excellent. It’s so refreshing to see some intelligent discussion of what is actually the law (in contrast to the usual nonsense that gets posted about imaginary and fantasy law). Well done.
Thank you! I try to keep it as analytical as possible.
Thank you! If you could do video on selection of applicable law, Erie and the entire substantive/procedural mess. I watch your videos in my 1L year and they got me through the first semester! Thank you again!
Taking Themis and omg I was utterly confused to say the least but wow this helps so much. You are heaven sent sir
OMG. Wish I had seen it earlier, before wasting so much time trying to understand it. Thank you.
No problem, happy to help!
as always, best teacher so far..... ever.....
You are amazing.... very easy to understand. I can learn from you all day.
omg i just found your channel and THANK YOU
Great video as always. How does this play out if SMJ is based on diversity of citizenship?
Excellent.
Great vids - really tie up some loose ends. FYI our professor uses common nucleus of operable fact for supplement JDX. Same transaction or occurrence is used for the compulsory counterclaim and is a narrower standard from Jones v Ford Credit (but I guess that's 2nd Circuit - so maybe not common to teach that way)
Thank God you exist 🙏🏼
You're too kind, thank you!
Crystal clear!
Thank you for this video, it really demystified this topic that nearly gave me depression. Nevertheless, I notice there was a place you did not mention in the short and comprehensive video:" while the defendant can counterclaim or sued a third party for indemnity (state laws in both cases), can the plaintive do same especially the third party under state law in the same suit?
This was excellent. Just to add, what you explained here is Pendent Jurisdiction (claims) which is different to Ancillary Jurisdiction (adding a party). Thanks.
This dude rules.
Gracias amigo
Hi Michael, loving the videos!
Could you clarify something for me? In this example, would the Copyright Infringement claim have to reach the $75k threshold alone, or could the supplemental Breach of Contract claim make up the difference?
Scenario 1:
Copyright = $100k
Breach = $200k
There's no question that the $75k threshold is met in just the Copyright claim alone, thus the value of the breach claim shouldn't matter, and it seems supplemental jx is valid
Scenario 2:
Copyright = $50k
Breach = $200k
The Copyright claim alone is insufficient, but the Breach claim more than makes up the difference to get to the $75k threshold. Does supplemental jx apply?
Scenario 3:
Copyright = 50k
Breach = $30k
Neither case alone will reach the threshold, but combined they do exceed the $75k. Does supplemental jx apply?
Scenario 4:
Copyright = $100k
Breach = $500
As with Scenario 1, Because the Copyright claim exceeds $75k, I'm inclined to think the value of the breach claim is irrelevant and jx jurisdiction applies.
I assumed that a supplemental jurisdiction claim arising out of the same transaction can be used to aggregate claims in order to meet the $75,000+ requirement. Based on your lecture my understanding is that this assumption was incorrect as SMJ must be satisfied first?
Your explanations are a life saver thank you. I have one question though - if the original cause of action arises under 'Trademark' - but is voluntarily dismissed based on discovery responses, and the related claims are for breach of contract, - can the court still apply supplemental jurisdiction even when the original federal claim is now dismissed?
This reply comes long after you needed it I’m sure, but this is 1 of the 4 instances of where a federal judge may decline to exercise 1367 supplemental jurisdiction. Specifically, the judge may decline the hear the supplemental claim when the court has dismissed all other claims which it has original federal subject matter jurisdiction.
See the revision common posted by OP for the other 3 instances!
Hope this helps!
Thanks!
Why wasn't the SNOOF test mentioned in this video?
Thank you so much! Can you do Erie?
No problem, happy to help! I'll try to get an Erie video up when I circle back around to Civil Procedure.
What about 1367(b)?
Good question! My focus in this video was on adding claims -- not parties. I didn't want to go into 1367(b) without laying a foundation for Rules 14, 19, 20, and 24 first. I suppose we absolutely need a part 2 for adding parties and some coverage of joinder, as well. Stay tuned!
I am waiting for this because this exception is killing me lol. I mean the general rule allows intervention but the exception seems to foreclose the application of supplemental jurisdiction to intervention. My brain hurts😄😄😄
good video. what is "studicata," is it portmanteau of the latin words studeo + delicata?
Close! "Studeo" + "Judicata" (i.e., like "Res Judicata").
Great job
Thanks!
You didn’t mention the one limitation in SJ: that in a diversity action, a plaintiff may not supplement (except for purposes of AIG including a second P)
WHAT ABOUT WHEN A CLAIM ARISES UNDER DIVERSITY JURISDICTION - PLTF LIMITATION IS CONFUSING
What About Rule 18 for adding unrelated claims? Wouldn't the unrelated Breach of Contract claim be allowed if the Amounts in controversy could be aggregated to meet diversity?
Would that be a permissive counterclaim?
you're saving me for my final tomorrow
Awesome, hope it went well!
Back to Diversity & Supplemental Jurisdiction for a sec... so if a plaintiff from Texas sues a Defendant from NY for a breach of K claim (claim 1) that satisfies the amount in controversy, could that same plaintiff assert another state claim against that same defendant without having to satisfy the amount in controversy again?!
Yes. Two scenarios: 1) Main claim exceeds minimum amount in controversy: subject matter jurisdiction is proper on the 2nd claim even when the supplemental claim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. 2) Neither claim independently meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement, but the amounts added together exceeds $75,000: the claims can be aggregated since there is 1 plaintiff & 1 defendant (in this case, supplemental jurisdiction doesn’t even apply: it’s just original subject matter jurisdiction on a diversity basis).
@@ashgiri94 agreed with Ashwat Giri.
Do you have a video on ERIE
Yes! ua-cam.com/video/_dirN4-q0n8/v-deo.html
In his first definition - He says “a requirement for a CIVIL court must meet...” doesn’t he mean FED court?
I llve your videos and i suscribe to studicata but this video is missing 1368 B and C
I was wondering if this tutor can elaborate on whether diversity citizenship and amount of controversy fall under the umbrella of diversity jurisdiction. 😛😛😛
Under diversity Jurisdiction, Joinder of claims, a Plaintiff can aggregate all claims against the same defendant to exceed the jurisdictional minimum. How can you tell at this point that you are not in supplemental jurisdiction territory, where these multiple claims have to arise out of the "same case and controversy?"
Suppose P (citizen of TX) sues D (citizen of NY) on 2 separate state law claims: (1) a breach of contract claim seeking $50,000 in damages; and (2) a negligence claim seeking $40,000 in damages. Does a federal court have jurisdiction to hear both of P's claims?
The federal court has diversity jurisdiction if: (1) complete diversity is present between the parties; and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Here, complete diversity is present between the parties, because P is a citizen of TX and D is a citizen of NY. Thus, our only issue is aggregation of claims (whether we can add $50,000 + $40,000 to satisfy the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement). Remember, 1 plaintiff can aggregate all of his claims against 1 defendant to meet the amount in controversy requirement (regardless of whether the claims constitute the same case or controversy). Thus, P can aggregate his 2 claims against D to meet the amount in controversy requirement ($50,000 + $40,000 > $75,000).
Ultimately, supplemental jurisdiction is not at issue in this fact pattern (it is irrelevant whether both claims constitute the same case or controversy), because both claims independently satisfy diversity jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction (whether the claims constitute the same case or controversy) is generally only at issue when there is a claim being brought that does not independently satisfy federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
I hope this illustrates the difference between aggregation of claims in a diversity analysis and the "same case or controversy" requirement in a supplemental jurisdiction analysis.
Studicata yes it does!! Thank you
Ya Themis is overcomplicating this one. They should explain it all together like this instead of talking about SJ individually for each different kind of claim. Thank you !
Hot. So hot.
i think im in love w u