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.
46. How should the court proceed?
The court granted the motion to dismiss the depositor's federal claim and reserved ruling on the motion to dismiss the state-law claim. After completing discovery, the bank has moved to dismiss the state-law claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A depositor sued her bank in federal court, seeking $30,000 in damages. The complaint set out the bank's method of calculating interest and alleged that the method violated both federal banking law and state contract law. The bank filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that its method of calculating interest, as described in the complaint, was proper under federal law and that the federal law preempted the depositor's state-law claim.
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
B is incorrect. Supplemental jurisdiction is a discretionary doctrine. A court is never obligated to exercise it, even when the state-law claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim.
C is incorrect. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred because of the nature of the defense raised in response to a claim.
D is incorrect. The court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim because it forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal law claim and the dismissal of the federal law claim did not divest the court of supplemental jurisdiction. Further, it is irrelevant that the depositor is seeking less than the minimum amount in controversy under diversity jurisdiction.