streetlawyer wrote: Banana1 wrote: RCinDNA wrote: Banana1 wrote: RCinDNA wrote:
Banana1 wrote:Hey Guys,
Hope studying is going well!
Can someone help me understand rule 1367 in in preclusion in diversity cases?
So D can bring in third parties and P cant? what if third party destroys diversity jurisdiction bt P and D2?
I dont get what the rule means as to claims by existing plaintifs against impleader etc.
Do not get psyched out on this because at least one question will involve 1367 - so definitely look this up in your outline again to get the mechanics stuck in your head since it makes sense if you think through what jurisidiction means. Yes, it only allows the defendant to bring in third parties. The third party defendant does not destroy the diversity between the plaintiff and defendant.
I got it! Thank you! Does it come up a lot?
In real life, quite often - on the Bar, there will likely be one or two questions on it because it is such an easily testable piece of information. My thought is that any bit of detail that can be tested directly on both a reading comprehension and intermediate application level is likely *to* be tested and I think 1367 falls in that category.
Ugh I hate that and erie!
I think its easier to understand it by understanding the reason behind it than trying to memorize the whole rule. The Feds don't want a P to sue someone from their own state when they can easily bring the case into state court. They don't want to get involved in every little fight. At the same time it isn't fair to deprive D of indemnification or contribution. So D can and P can't. If P is a slimeball lawyer who decides that he's going to override law by simply suing one without suing the other (and wait for the other guy, D, to bring in D2) than P should be screwed by not being able to file a claim against D2. If P wants D2 than he has to sue in his own state.
I may be wrong but I am starting to think that law school and the bar prep programs aren't doing a good job of explaining these things.
That is exactly my understanding and why I was saying to not get psyched out - it makes sense when you look at it from a macro level. I had a great civ pro teacher that made us pick through actual cases so it ended up being a strong subject for me but the prep programs just do not have time.
Erie is another one that you will grow to love. It is so easily applied but people can make it so complex: just look at the operative words - a *federal court* sitting in *diversity* will apply the *substantive* law of the jurisdiction in which it *sits*. I did that from memory bit what does it mean? If State A has a substantive law regarding contracts, a federal court will apply that but if an issue comes up in the case that is *procedural*, such as filing times, the federal court will apply federal rules. But the big one is *diversity* - one part of the analysis is whether diversity jurisdiction is proper but where you may see a question is that in a *federal question* case, because it involves a *federal law* or the *Constitution*, Erie will not apply to the federal portion of the claim. You can get into conflict of law issues from there but there are through lines running through these topics and once you find them, it is a bit easier to see where the examiners can try to trip you up on the MbEs and the MEEs.
Case in point, there were examinees on the July bar who thought the Civ Pro MBE questions were cobflict of law questions - they just did not realize they were most likely being tested on diversity vs federal question jurisdiction.