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.
31. Should the district court grant the nurse's motion to dismiss?
The nurse moved to dismiss the case for lack of complete diversity between the parties. In response, the patient argued that the court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over her claim against the nurse.
A patient brought a negligence action in federal district court in State A against a dentist and a nurse following a root canal procedure they performed together. The patient is seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages. The patient is a citizen of State A, the dentist is a citizen of State B, and the nurse is a citizen of State A.
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, the patient (plaintiff) and nurse (co-defendant) are both from State A, which destroys diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This prohibits the court from having diversity jurisdiction over the patient's claims against the dentist and the nurse.
A is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of law. Supplemental jurisdiction may sometimes give a court jurisdiction over an action that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with an underlying claim that has proper federal subject-matter jurisdiction. This case does not fall within supplemental jurisdiction because there is no underlying claim with proper subject-matter jurisdiction, for the reasons stated above.
B is incorrect. An interest in judicial economy is not a basis to cure a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, the court should grant the nurse's motion because there is not complete diversity among the parties.
D is incorrect. Although the court should grant the nurse's motion, it is not because the claims do not arise from the same case or controversy. The patient's suit is based on a root canal procedure performed by both defendants, which means the claims do arise out of the same controversy. However, because the patient and nurse are both from State A, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction.