Course Hero Logo

Example p sues d for 500000 for personal injuries

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 35 - 37 out of 101 pages.

Example:P sues D for $500,000 for personal injuries allegedly inflicted by jointtortfeasors D and X. Applicable law provides that joint tortfeasors havea right of contribution against each other. D may implead X into thepending case. D is seeking to deflect her liability on P’s claim, in part, toX. (If X owed D indemnity for some reason, then D could implead X todeflect her entire liability on the underlying claim to X.)Under Rule 14, after the third-party defendant is impleaded, he may assert a claimagainst the plaintiff in the pending case if the claim arises from the same transactionor occurrence as the underlying suit. In addition, under Rule 14, after the third-partydefendant is impleaded, the plaintiff may assert a claim against him if it arises from thesame transaction or occurrence as the underlying suit.1)Subject Matter Jurisdiction RequiredOf course, every claim asserted in federal court must have a basis of subject matterjurisdiction.Examples:1) P, a citizen of Illinois, sues D, a citizen of Wisconsin, asserting astate law claim of more than $75,000. Thus, the case invokes diver-sity of citizenship jurisdiction and is properly brought in federalcourt. Now D impleads X, who is also a citizen of Illinois, on anindemnity claim of more than $75,000. That claim invokes diver-sity of citizenship jurisdiction, because it is asserted by a citizenof Wisconsin (D) against a citizen of Illinois (X) and exceeds$75,000. The fact that P is also a citizen of Illinois is irrelevant;the claim is not by or against her, so her citizenship does not affectthe impleader claim. If P wanted to assert a claim against X in thissituation, however, there would not be diversity because P and Xare co-citizens of Illinois. In addition, the claim would not invokesupplemental jurisdiction, because in diversity of citizenship cases,the supplemental jurisdiction statute cannot be used to override thecomplete diversity rule (seeIII.E.,infra). Thus, unless the claim byP against X invoked federal question jurisdiction, it could not be22.CIVIL PROCEDURE
asserted in the pending case; it would have to be asserted in statecourt.2) P, a citizen of Alabama, sues D, a citizen of Maine, assertinga state law claim of more than $75,000. Thus, the case invokesdiversity of citizenship jurisdiction and is properly brought infederal court. Now D impleads X, who is also a citizen of Maine,on a state law contribution claim. The impleader claim does notinvoke diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, because it is asserted bya citizen of Maine (D) against another citizen of Maine (X). It doesnot invoke federal question jurisdiction because it is based on statelaw. The claim invokes the ancillary form of supplemental jurisdic-tion, however, because it arises from the same nucleus of commonfact as the underlying case and is asserted by the defendant, not theplaintiff, thus avoiding the restriction on the use of supplementaljurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. section 1367(b).

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 101 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
Brody

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture