The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Are fed courts REQUIRED to dismiss when lacking subject matter jurisdiction?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 17th, 2017 12:07 PM Author: Slate learning disabled locale mad cow disease even when no party raises the issue? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32852054) |
 |
Date: March 17th, 2017 6:03 PM Author: Self-absorbed bawdyhouse foreskin Yes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32854939) |
Date: March 17th, 2017 6:04 PM Author: Curious yellow gaming laptop dat SUA SPONTE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32854950) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 6:06 PM Author: Self-absorbed bawdyhouse foreskin Lots of district judges have their clerks look at every complaint the day it comes in to make sure there's SMJ and if it's not clear from the complaint that there is, then the court issued an OSC. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32854957) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:45 PM Author: insecure marketing idea jew I did this with case up for MSJ. Three year old case, but they fucked up LLC diversity. Brrrrrrutal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855547) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 6:16 PM Author: Ruby Pocket Flask Sometimes remand is the choice over dismissal if no smj after removal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855028) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:44 PM Author: insecure marketing idea jew Yes, but they are empowered under a dumb Supreme CT case to dismiss on other grounds and not reach SMj if SMj is complicated - (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855541) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:48 PM Author: Slate learning disabled locale mad cow disease if a court dismisses an underlying federal claim, is it REQUIRED to dismiss a supllemental state claim for lack of SMJ? or does the court have discretion to decide state law claim? and if so, can the court even dismiss federal claim first and then decide state law claim later? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855563) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:49 PM Author: insecure marketing idea jew CT can in its discretion resolve the supplemental claim. This isn't an SMJ issue if I'm reading u correctly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855571) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:52 PM Author: Slate learning disabled locale mad cow disease what if there is no diversity for the state law claim; so SJM for state law was premised solely on arising out of facts of federal claim (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855589) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:54 PM Author: insecure marketing idea jew Yes that's Gibbs / 1367 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855603) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:59 PM Author: Slate learning disabled locale mad cow disease why would a court be obligated to dismiss for SJM if state law claim was brought on its own, but allowed to keep it if brougth in connection with a federal claim that is dismissed? purely for efficiency purposes? would SJM still technically exist after fed claim dismissed? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855617) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:05 PM Author: insecure marketing idea jew Smj is evaluated at the outset of a case.
Supplemental jurisdiction is built off of pendent jurisdiction. The basic idea is that the nucleus of facts giving rise to the claim is similar enough to justify hearing it in the same forum.
This makes sense as a matter of efficiency. In addition, one can see the formal appeal - smj is evaluated with reference to the hypothetical well pleaded complaint (well works, but cf. Shoshone, grable, surgeons), which depends on the nucleus of operative facts. Hence if the state and fed noof overlap enough, in a sense it's like a federal claim-like, even if it'd be pleaded in state CT.
But fed ct has discretion to dismiss if not related enough. |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:09 PM Author: Slate learning disabled locale mad cow disease but it's only efficient if the fed claim was actually litigated. if it was dismissed at the outset without discovery, why should a court be allowed to keep the state law claim that wouldn't have been allowed on its own? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855668) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:11 PM Author: insecure marketing idea jew Court has discretion. Actual efficiency is an empirical q I'm just telling you what the law is, faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855674) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:11 PM Author: Slate learning disabled locale mad cow disease tyty.
it's weird to me that a court could go on to decide the state law claim, even going so far as to interpret state law, long after it already got rid of the fed claim |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:14 PM Author: Bat shit crazy fluffy scourge upon the earth pervert IIRC the test skews against exercising supp jx in these types of cases. It's when the court has put substantial work into understanding the facts, supervising discovery, and is nearing MSJ or trial and for some reason the fed claim drops out that it makes sense to keep the case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855689) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:12 PM Author: Deep carnelian patrolman All correct, but people get thrown off with this analysis as applied to diversity jurisdiction. If the parties are diverse at the time the complaint is filed, the court retains smj even if one of the parties subsequently moves and the parties are no longer diverse. However, if the plaintiff subsequently joins a non-diverse party, and the court doesn't refuse the joinder under 1447(e), the court's diveristy jurisdiction is destroyed and the case must be dismissed or remanded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855679) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:14 PM Author: Slate learning disabled locale mad cow disease what if defendant impleads a party that is in same state as defendant? non-diverse? what about if the new party is in same state as plaintiff? non-diverse? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855685) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:15 PM Author: Deep carnelian patrolman That's what Wright & Miller is for, faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855700) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:15 PM Author: insecure marketing idea jew (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855705) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:50 PM Author: massive cruise ship federal claim isn't the only grounds for smj (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855576) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:29 PM Author: pink school Career federal district clerk here. It's discretionary whether to decline to keep supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims when you dismiss the federal ones, in a case originally based on federal question jurisdiction. See 28 USC 1367(c)(3). We usually decline to keep it- the general rule in my circuit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855803) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:49 PM Author: motley fat ankles organic girlfriend Doobs it's pretty late in the day to be asking these questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855567) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 7:50 PM Author: obsidian startled ladyboy jewess the law never sleeps... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855579) |
|
Date: March 17th, 2017 8:14 PM Author: Cobalt provocative messiness meetinghouse Yes unless the state constitution in which the federal court sits requires the court to hear the issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3556062&forum_id=2#32855687) |