Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
16. Should the court grant the talk show host's motion?
The actor's alleged damages totaled $186,000 and the limo driver's alleged damages totaled $57,000. The talk show host's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the limo driver's claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
An actor and a limo driver are both citizens of State A. Together, they sued a talk show host, a citizen of State B, in federal district court in State B. The complaint alleged that the talk show host breached a contract in which the actor was to be a regular correspondent on the talk show and the limo driver was to provide transportation for the actor to and from the studio.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Here, there is a common nucleus of operative fact between the actor's claim and the limo driver's claim. They claimed that the host breached a contract that caused damages to both the actor and the limo driver. Although the damage amounts are different, both arise from the same breach. Therefore, because both claims arose out of the same contract, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the limo driver's claim and should not grant the motion.
A is incorrect. Complete diversity requires that no plaintiff be a co-citizen with any defendant. It does not require co-plaintiffs to be diverse from one another. Therefore, two plaintiffs from the same state may still establish complete diversity.
B is incorrect. Although the court does not have diversity jurisdiction solely over the limo driver because that claim is under the $75,000 threshold requirement, the court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over the limo driver's claim because the actor's claim does satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
D is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. The court should not grant the motion, but not because the limo driver consented to personal jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction does not turn on the establishment of personal jurisdiction. Regardless of whether the limo driver waived any defect in personal jurisdiction by filing the claim in State B, the court may exert subject-matter jurisdiction over the limo driver's claim through supplemental jurisdiction because the court has diversity jurisdiction over the actor's claims.