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.
41. May the court permit the woman to join the driver as a defendant?
Several months later, during discovery, the woman moved to amend her complaint to add the limousine driver, a citizen of State A, as a defendant. The woman told the court that she didn't sue the driver sooner because she did not know his name and she did not think the driver would have the resources to pay her judgment. The limousine company and the driver both argue that the woman should not be permitted to join the driver as a defendant.
A woman from State A was struck by a limousine. The woman sued the limousine company, a citizen of both State B and State C, in state court in State A for $100,000 to compensate for her injuries. The limousine company timely removed the action to the local federal district court.
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
FRCP 15 provides an extremely liberal policy on the amendment of pleadings. A pleading may be amended once without the leave of the court within 21 days after the pleading was served.
FRCP 18(a) provides that a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or a third-party claim, «may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.» FRCP 18 does not affect the requirements of subject-matter jurisdiction, which must be independently satisfied by the joined claim.
Subject-matter jurisdiction may be based on diversity (as opposed to federal question), where the parties are completely diverse (i.e., no plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant) and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.
C is correct. The federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction is based on diversity, as the woman is a citizen of State A and the limousine company is a citizen of both State B and State C, which amounts to complete diversity. If the court were to allow the woman to add the driver, a citizen of State A, it would destroy diversity between the parties because the plaintiff and one defendant would be citizens of the same state (State A). The court has the discretion to allow the amendment, but doing so would necessitate that the case be remanded back to state court.
A is incorrect. Although there is a liberal philosophy towards pleading amendments, this is not outcome-determinative in this case. Here, joining the driver, a citizen of State A (the same state as the woman's citizenship) would destroy complete diversity between the parties, leaving the federal court without subject-matter jurisdiction. Regardless of whether the court may grant the woman leave to amend after the 21-day window had closed, it may not allow the joinder of a party who would destroy jurisdiction, as stated above.
B is incorrect. Generally, the court may allow an amended pleading when «justice so requires,» but this is not an avenue for relief here. Allowing the woman to amend her complaint and join the driver would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, which is a prerequisite for the court to adjudicate the case at all.
D is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. It is incorrect to state that parties are barred from amending their pleadings 21 days after service. A party may amend their pleading once within 21 days as a matter of right and may amend after that by written consent of the adverse party or leave of the court. Here, the reason the court should deny the woman's amendment is that it would destroy diversity jurisdiction, as stated above.