5) As counsel for Pater, explain how and why you can assert these claims against TLLC as part of this litigation. Pater asserts the claims described in Question # 5. TLLC moves to dismiss Pater’s claims against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. TLLC makes two arguments. First, TLLC and Pater are both citizens of Delaware and § 1332 (a federal jurisdictional statute) does not permit federal courts to hear claims between citizens of the same state. A second federal jurisdictional statute, § 1367, might have allowed the court to hear the claims, despite being between citizens of the same state, but that statute does not apply to claims brought in this current procedural posture (again, for reasons that are not important for present purposes). The motion is likely to be granted. (Do not fight this paragraph—accept that neither jurisdictional statute is satisfied and the court lacks jurisdiction over these claims). In the pleading described in Question # 5, Pater alleged (in her short and plain statement of jurisdiction) that TLLC was a Texas citizen. Counsel concedes that she never investigated TLLC’s organizational structure, although such information was publicly available from various state agencies and would have revealed that TLLC was a Delaware citizen. Counsel assumed, erroneously, that, because TLLC’s headquarters were in Texas, it was a citizen of Texas. Counsel also concedes that she did not research § 1367 or realize that it did not apply to claims brought in this procedural posture. In addition to moving to dismiss the claims, TLLC would like the court to impose sanctions on Pater for asserting these claims against it. 6) As counsel for TLLC, argue that Pater should be sanctioned, identifying the legal source(s) and legal and factual grounds for such sanctions. End of Examination. Congratulations.
5) As counsel for Pater, explain how and why you can assert these claims against TLLC as part of this litigation. Pater asserts the claims described in Question # 5. TLLC moves to dismiss Pater’s claims against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. TLLC makes two arguments. First, TLLC and Pater are both citizens of Delaware and § 1332 (a federal jurisdictional statute) does not permit federal courts to hear claims between citizens of the same state. A second federal jurisdictional statute, § 1367, might have allowed the court to hear the claims, despite being between citizens of the same state, but that statute does not apply to claims brought in this current procedural posture (again, for reasons that are not important for present purposes). The motion is likely to be granted. (Do not fight this paragraph—accept that neither jurisdictional statute is satisfied and the court lacks jurisdiction over these claims). In the pleading described in Question # 5, Pater alleged (in her short and plain statement of jurisdiction) that TLLC was a Texas citizen. Counsel concedes that she never investigated TLLC’s organizational structure, although such information was publicly available from various state agencies and would have revealed that TLLC was a Delaware citizen. Counsel assumed, erroneously, that, because TLLC’s headquarters were in Texas, it was a citizen of Texas. Counsel also concedes that she did not research § 1367 or realize that it did not apply to claims brought in this procedural posture. In addition to moving to dismiss the claims, TLLC would like the court to impose sanctions on Pater for asserting these claims against it. 6) As counsel for TLLC, argue that Pater should be sanctioned, identifying the legal source(s) and legal and factual grounds for such sanctions. End of Examination. Congratulations.
prelimexam-4.docx