any lawyers out there?!?!

[Corporate Thug]

If Plaintiff is bringing suit to two parties, has only served one (who is diverse from the plaintiff) and has yet to serve to second (who is not diverse from the plaintiff), can the defendent who is served first file a motion to remove the case to federal court before the second defendant is served? will the motion to remand to state court be granted as soon as the second party is served?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Why would the federal court remand it to state court just because the third party was impleaded? As long as the case satisfies the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, I don't see why the case wouldn't stay in federal court. IT's not as though the presence of the third party could destroy diversity.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Why would the federal court remand it to state court just because the third party was impleaded? As long as the case satisfies the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, I don't see why the case wouldn't stay in federal court. IT's not as though the presence of the third party could destroy diversity.

how does the third party not destroy diversity???

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

how does the third party not destroy diversity???

It can't, by definition. In your hypothetical, there is already diversity between the two parties (say the plaintiff is in California and the defendant in Nevada). Even if you add another defendant from one state (say, California), you still haven't destroyed diversity.

 

[aphex]

Its amazing how little i remember from Civ Pro from last year... Lemme see if i can find it in my FRCP....

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aphex
Its amazing how little i remember from Civ Pro from last year... Lemme see if i can find it in my FRCP....

I remember even less - I took Civ Pro nine years ago. Still, I can't see why the third party would cause the case to be remanded to state court.

 

[Corporate Thug]

so a plaintiff cannot destroy diversity? what if a defendant adds another defendant to that is from the same state as the plaintiff? is diversity destroyed then?

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aphex
Its amazing how little i remember from Civ Pro from last year... Lemme see if i can find it in my FRCP....

I remember even less - I took Civ Pro nine years ago. Still, I can't see why the third party would cause the case to be remanded to state court.

I'm pretty sure your right, but i've almost found it...

 

[aphex]

"Impleading a third party claim DOES NOT affect the court's jurisdiction over the original claim" However, there must still be a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the impleader claim, if not, possible "supplemental jurisdiction" under 27 U.S.C. 1367a.

From, Examples and Explanations: Civil Procedure, Glannon.

 

[Corporate Thug]

1447 (e)???

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: aphex
"Impleading a third party claim DOES NOT affect the court's jurisdiction over the original claim" However, there must still be a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the impleader claim, if not, possible "supplemental jurisdiction" under 27 U.S.C. 1367a.

nice, thanx a lot. i was lookin at 1447

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

ah, how I love lawyer lingo. It's complete gibberish to everyone but lawyers!

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: aphex
"Impleading a third party claim DOES NOT affect the court's jurisdiction over the original claim" However, there must still be a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the impleader claim, if not, possible "supplemental jurisdiction" under 27 U.S.C. 1367a.

nice, thanx a lot. i was lookin at 1447

Any further and i'd have to turn to lexis... Can't find my FRCP

Man, how the HELL did i get a 3.5 in that class? I don't remember a DAMN thing...

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
ah, how I love lawyer lingo. It's complete gibberish to everyone but lawyers!

Unfortunately, ya get used to it quickly...