This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Rule 23 and 20 Gap Questions Spring 2000I. Do the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of the class [Mr. Porter sues on behalf of citizens of Arkabama injured by a Pacifica CorpSCAbecause nobody had claims more than $75. SCA tries to dismiss b/c the Arkabama Code of Proc. says class members have to have claims of $100 each b/c it could hurt the economy through overdeterrance]? Please explain. In framing your answer, you may assume that the AIC w/r/t Mr. Porters claims is satisfied because the court will award attorneys fees to Mr. Porter if the class prevails. I THINK THIS HAS CHANGED IN LIGHT OF ALLAPATTAH. ACTUAL MODEL ANSWER: The only way for the courts to possibly have SMJ over the class is through supplemental jurisdiction. The unnamed s do not have the reqd amount in controversy, then therefore there is no diversity jurisdiction. Also, no federal question is involved. For supplemental jurisdiction, you need a 1)_free standing claim and 2) a logical relationship between the free-standing claim and the potential suppl claim. Porter (AK) v. SCA (Pac) is free-standing due to diversity jurisdiction. The AIC is met by assumed facts in the hypo. There is also a logical relationship between the two claims, both deal with violations of AK state law. This means there is a constitutional basis for suppl jurisdiction. However, there must also be a statutory basis. 1367 of FRCP provides this. Since the action is founded solely on diversity. 1367(b) applies. There are numerous different readings of 1367 (b). One reading is the Free courts reading. In part 2, s joined under rule 23 as these class s are, are not mentioned. So, district courts can have supp jurisdiction over s joined under rule 23, since it was left out of 1367 (b). Thre free court also said that 21357 was clear on its face, so they didnt have to look at Congresss intent, which was to not repeal the complete diversity or AIC requirement at all. It is quite amazing that Free would find 1367 unambiguous, also amazing that they would ignore Congress intent so blatantly. Thus, we turn to another reading of 1367 (b)....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course LAW 433 taught by Professor Wooley during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.
- Spring '08