Single claims against single may be aggregated to π’s ∆ the amount in controversy. Claims against multiple may not be aggregated (unless ∆ joint liability for a single injury). Counterclaims under Rule 13: Make sure they are counterclaims and not affirmative defenses (i.e., contributory negligence). WHAT A COUNTERCLAIM COMPULSORY IS CLAIM PRECLUSION—LEGAL SYSTEM WANTS TO ENHANCE EFFICIENCY, CONSISTENCY, AND FINALITY. PLANT v. BLAZER FINANCIAL SERVICES: brought π suit against under the Truth and Lending Act for failure to ∆ make required disclosure. counterclaimed for unpaid debt ∆ under the loan. The initial action was under Federal Question jurisdiction and the counterclaim was a state claim. The court allowed the state claim as a compulsory counterclaim under 13(a) because there was a clear factual basis that this was the same transaction and it would frustrate the purpose of compulsory counterclaims if could not recover (∆ would have to satisfy claim ∆ π’s without assurance that his claim will be satisfied in state court). If the two claims are factually related, it will matter for purposes of: Compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a)—same transaction or occurrence Supplemental SMJ under 1367(a)—same case or controversy. RULE: A permissive counterclaim must have an independent jurisdictional while it is generally accepted that a compulsory counterclaim falls within supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts even if it would ordinarily be a mater for state court jurisdiction. Consider Policy when asking whether it is compulsory or permissive.
Single π’s claims against single ∆ may be aggregated to the amount in controversy. Claims against multiple ∆ may not be aggregated (unless joint liability for a single injury). Counterclaims under Rule 13: Make sure they are counterclaims and not affirmative defenses (i.e., contributory negligence). WHAT A COUNTERCLAIM COMPULSORY IS CLAIM PRECLUSION—LEGAL SYSTEM WANTS TO ENHANCE EFFICIENCY, CONSISTENCY, AND FINALITY. PLANT v. BLAZER FINANCIAL SERVICES: π brought suit against ∆ under the Truth and Lending Act for failure to make required disclosure. ∆ counterclaimed for unpaid debt under the loan. The initial action was under Federal Question jurisdiction and the counterclaim was a state claim. The court allowed the state claim as a compulsory counterclaim under 13(a) because there was a clear factual basis that this was the same transaction and it would frustrate the purpose of compulsory counterclaims if ∆ could not recover (∆ would have to satisfy π’s claim without assurance that his claim will be satisfied in state court). If the two claims are factually related, it will matter for purposes of: Compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a)—same transaction or occurrence Supplemental SMJ under 1367(a)—same case or controversy. RULE: A permissive counterclaim must have an independent jurisdictional while it is generally accepted that a compulsory counterclaim falls within supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts even if it would ordinarily be a mater for state court jurisdiction. Consider Policy when asking whether it is compulsory or permissive.
Civil-Procedure-Caplan-2014-1.docx