JOINDER PROBLEMS - PART I
I.
A (from Massachusetts) sues B (also from Massachusetts) for employment
discrimination (a claim giving rise to federal question jurisdiction) in federal
district court. A also sues B for negligence after B hit A in an unrelated car accident.
A. Are these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over both claims?
a)
II.
A (from Massachusetts) sues B (also from Massachusetts) for employment
discrimination (a claim giving rise to federal question jurisdiction) in federal
district court. A also sues B for breach of contract related to her firing.
A. Are these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over both claims?
a)
III.
A (from Massachusetts) sues B (from Maine) for employment discrimination in
federal district court (a claim giving rise to federal question jurisdiction). A also sues
B for negligence after B hit A in an unrelated car accident, and A alleges damages in
excess of $75,000.
A. Are these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over both claims?
a)
PARTY JOINDER HYPOS
IV.
A sues B (federal law claim) and C (federal law claim) in federal district court, and
the claims against B and C are completely unrelated.
A. Are these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over both claims?
a)
V.
A sues B and C in federal district court. A alleges that B and C engaged in an
unlawful conspiracy against A contrary to federal antitrust law (i.e., claims giving
rise to federal question jurisdiction).
A. Are these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over both claims?
a)
VI.
A sues B and C in federal district court. A alleges that B and C engaged in an
unlawful conspiracy against A. A sues B under federal antitrust law and C (a
NON-DIVERSE defendant) under a state law unfair practices act. Can A do so?
A. Are these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over both claims?
a)
VII.
A (Mass.) sues B (Connecticut) and C (Mass) in federal district court. A alleges that B
and C were two drivers that caused a three-way car accident. The claims exceed
$75,000 against each defendant. Can A sue in federal district court?
A. Is A's claim procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against B? (if B were sued
alone)
a)
C. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against C?
a)
VIII.
Exactly the same case as above, but brought in state court where the joinder rules
are the same as they are in federal court.
A. Are all of these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over all claims?
a)
IX.
A (Connecticut) and B (Massachusetts) sue C (Mass.) in federal district court. A and
B allege that C caused a three-way car accident. The claims against C exceed
$75,000 with respect to each plaintiff.
A. Are all of these claims procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over A's claim?
a)
C. Is B’s claim permitted by 1367? Is it constitutional?
a)
DEFENDANT JOINDER RULES
X.
A (from Mass.) sues B (from Maine) for negligence in federal district court and
alleges $100,000 in damages. B counter-claims for negligence arising out of the
same incident, but B alleges less than $75,000 in damages.
A. Is B’s claim procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over B’s claim?
a)
XI.
A (from Mass.) sues B (from Maine) for negligence in federal district court and
alleges $100,000 in damages. B counter-claims for negligence arising out of a
different and unrelated incident, but B alleges more than $75,000 in damages.
A. Is B's claim procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over B’s claim?
a)
XII.
A (from Mass.) sues B (from Maine) for negligence in federal district court and
alleges $100,000 in damages. B counter-claims for negligence arising out of a
different and unrelated incident, but B alleges less than $75,000 in damages
A. Is B's claim procedurally proper?
a)
B. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over B’s claim?
a)
JOINDER HYPOS - PART II
I.
CROSSCLAIMS
A. A (Mass.) sues B (Conn.) and C (Conn.) for injuries arising out of a three-way
accident. B brings a crossclaim against C, alleging that C caused the accident
and injured B. B also brings a completely unrelated tort claim against C. All
claims to exceed $75,000
1. Is the crossclaim procedurally proper?
a)
2. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over the crossclaim?
a)
3. Is the tort claim procedurally proper?
a)
4. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over the tort claim?
a)
B. Would there be subject matter jurisdiction over the tort claim if C's citizenship
were Illinois?
a)
II.
IMPLEADER
A. A three-car accident occurs involving A, B, and C. A (Mass.) sues B (Conn.). B
then impleads C (from Conn.), alleging that C was negligent and should pay B's
damages in the accident. All claims exceed $75,000.
1. Are all of the claims procedurally proper?
a)
2. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over all of the claims?
a)
B. A three-car accident occurs involving A, B, and C. A (Mass.) sues B (Conn.). B
then impleads C (from Conn.), asserting that caused the accident and should
pay B if B is held liable to A. All claims exceed $75,000.
1. Are all of the claims procedurally proper?
a)
2. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over all of the claims?
a)
C. A three-car accident occurs involving A, B, and C. A (Mass.) sues B (Conn.). B
then impleads C (from Conn.), asserting that C caused the accident and should
pay B if B is held liable to A. B also asserts an unrelated tort claim against C. All
claims exceed $75,000
1. Is the unrelated tort claim procedurally proper?
a)
2. Is there subject matter jurisdiction over all of the claims?
a)