1. Spring 1993 Exam

2. Paul’s Citizenship US because _________________. At birth, he’s a citizen of ______. –Because _____________________. –Not because __________________. During college in OR, he was a citizen of ____ because –____________________________ & –______________________________ 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

3. Paul’s Citizenship 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. Now he has a residence in HI MO No residence in HI yet HI He intends to indef’ly reside there time of filingMO

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

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. 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 #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

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. Diversity jurisdiction? Gibbs test? Statutory exceptions (1367(b)) –Original case is diversity –Suit by P v. 3PD –Inconsistent with diversity No supplemental jurisdiction #7 Paul v. Firm (Conspiracy)