Civ Pro Quiz Answers

Which of the following are true about remittitur

It is granted when the jury award of damages "shocks the conscience." It allows the court to offer to the prevailing party the option of either accepting a lower damages award or facing a new trial.

If a litigant has a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, that right cannot be waived, but can be raised at any time before trial.

False

Jan is suing David for negligence in Indiana federal court (assume there is diversity subject matter jurisdiction). David, in turn, files a third party complaint against Martin for contribution. Martin argues that the third party complaint must be dismissed because under Indiana law a claim for contribution does not exist until the joint-tortfeasor seeking contribution has in fact already paid the plaintiff. Since David has not yet paid Jan (the suit has just begun), Martin argues that David does not have a claim for contribution under Indiana law and so the third party claim must be dismissed. Which is correct?

Under Rule 14, David can bring the third party claim now because Martin "may be" liable to David ultimately.

under york case, when does fed court use state law in state law claims?

When failure to apply the state law would significantly alter the outcome of the case in federal court (as compared to how the same claim would come out if adjudicated in state court).

According to the Court in Gibbs, when is the relationship between a claim over which a federal court has independent jurisdiction and a non-diverse state law claim such that the claims form "one constitutional case" under Article III?

When the two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

According to Justice Brennan in Celotex, a summary judgment movant's options in fulfilling its burden of production are dependent on what?

Whether the movant will bear the ultimate burden of proof on that issue at trial.

The right to jury trial in civil cases created by the Seventh Amendment is tied to which?

Whether there was a right to jury trial in England in 1791

Assume you, as an attorney, are ordered by a court to turn over documents that you firmly believe are attorney-client privileged and should not be disclosed. Can you get an immediate appeal of the district court's order?

Yes if you disobey the order and go into criminal contempt

What are the twin aims of Erie?

avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws discouragement of forum shopping

The Supreme Court in Hannah altered the York outcome determinative test, by explaining that whether something was outcome determinative had to be considered how?(Select all that apply)

ex ante-before the case in lights of the twin aims of Erie

A counterclaim is compulsory if:

it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim

a motion for new trial under rule 59 must be filed

no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment

when must a party demand a jury trial

no later than within 14 days of the last pleading directed to the issue to be tried

The Seventh Amendment jury trial right is

not incorporated by the 14th Amendment and thus inapplicable to the States

collateral means

separate

According to the Supreme Court in Klaxon, under Erie, a federal court adjudicating a state law claim must apply:

the choice of law rules of the state in which the federal court sits

Justice Stevens agreed with portions of both Justice Scalia's opinion and Justice Ginsburg's opinion.

true

Justice Stevens argued in his own opinion that the FRCPS should be read with sensitivity to important state interests, including state substantive policies and purposes.

true

Once a claim is asserted by one party against another party (including pursuant to one of the joinder rules), Rule 18 then authorizes the joinder of any additional claims that claimant may have against the same party.

true

what happened in 1938

-FRCPS went into effect -The Supreme Court in Erie declared that federal courts could not constitutionally apply federal general common law to state law claims.

When the jurisdiction-conferring claim is diversity, the supplemental jurisdiction statute does which of the following in regard to claims joined under R.14? (Select all that apply)

-It allows supplemental jurisdiction over the third party claim from the defendant to the third-party defendant. -It prohibits supplemental jurisdiction over upsloping claims from the plaintiff to the third party defendant. -It allows supplemental jurisdiction over downsloping claims from the third party defendant against the plaintiff.

Which of the following is true about additur (select all that apply):

-It is unconstitutional in federal court. -It allows the court to offer to the losing party the option of either paying a larger award or facing a new trial. -It is granted when the jury award of damages "shocks the conscience."

In Kroger, the Supreme Court indicated which of the following?

-That there would NOT be supplemental jurisdiction (at least where the jurisdiction conferring claim is diversity) over upsloping claims between citizens of the same state. -That there should be supplemental jurisdiction over third party claims from a defendant to a third party defendant.

Which of the following were true under the Swift v. Tyson interpretation of the Rules of Decision Act (RDA)?

-Whether the federal or state general common law would be applied in a given case depended on which court--federal or state--suit was ultimately brought in. -In adjudicating state law claims, federal courts were required to apply state statutory law and state "local" common law dealing with such things as state real property. -In adjudicating state law claims, federal courts were free to ignore state common law on matters of commercial law and other areas of so-called "general" common law. In every state, there were effectively two versions of applicable general common law--federal and state.

Which of the following are true regarding the test for jury trial set out in Chauffeurs v. Terry?

1)Parties must identify a historic analog to determine whether this cause of action would have been brought in a court of law or a court of equity in 1791 England 2)second prong given more weight 3)Parties must examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature

fact is material under summary judgment if..

1)if a dispute over that fact might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law 2)as determined by the substantive law creating the cause of action or defense at issue

Which are true of crossclaims?

A crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted against it. -Joinder of a crossclaim is proper if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action. -they are permissive

when is dispute of a matieral fact genuine for summary j?

A dispute of material fact is genuine when a reasonable jury (or factfinder) could find for the nonmoving party as to that fact.

For a Rule 59 post-trial motion for a new trial on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, which of the following are true (select all that apply):

A new trial can only be granted if the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. -the judge can weight the evidence the judge can consider the credibility of the witnesses

Which of the following has the Supreme Court recognized as constituting an essential characteristic of the federal system for administering justice?

Anything dealing with the allocation of decision-making between judge and jury

Justice Scalia contended the following about how the FRCPs should be construed when determining whether an FRCP is on point and controlling?(Select all that apply)

Ask whether the FRCP answers the same question as the competing state law. -The purposes underlying the competing state law should NOT be considered. -FRCP read broadly

When the jurisdiction conferring claim is a federal question, then which of the following are true?(Select all that apply)

Assuming proper joinder, there will be supplemental jurisdiction over claims by multiple plaintiffs joined pursuant to Rule 20 and against multiple defendants joined under Rule 20. 1367(b) wont apply -Assuming proper joinder, there will be supplemental jurisdiction over third party claims, upsloping claims, and downsloping claims joined under Rule 14.

Absent a different time set out by court order or local rule, when can a summary judgment motion be filed?

At any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.

justice Ginsburg contended the following about how the FRCPs should be construed when determining whether an FRCP is on point and controlling?(Select all that apply)

Avoid broad, immoderate interpretations of the FRCPs. -The FRCP should be read narrowly to avoid unnecessary conflicts with state law. -The FRCP should be read with sensitivity to state substantive purposes.

The Supreme Court held that the collateral order doctrine did not apply to district court orders refusing to dismiss a case for lack of personal jurisdiction because:

Because the interest being protected is the right "not to be subject to a binding judgment of a court" that lacks jurisdiction, which interest can be vindicated by a reversal on appeal after a final judgment.

In Kroger, the Supreme Court indicated that a Rule 14 third party (impleader) claim satisfied the Gibbs standard requiring that the supplemental claim form one constitutional case with the original claim from the plaintiff against the defendant. Why did the court say that standard would be satisfied for a Rule 14 third party (impleader) claim?

Because the third party (impleader) claim was logically dependant on the original claim between the plaintiff and the defendant.

In Lawsuit 1, A sues B to recover for injuries caused by a car wreck, and B does NOT file a counterclaim against A. Subsequently, in Lawsuit 2, B sues A for negligence from the exact same car wreck. What is the result?

Claim Preclusion will probably bar A from bringing a counterclaim against B in Lawsuit 2. -B will likely be barred by an applicable compulsory counterclaim rule from bringing Lawsuit 2. -Claim Preclusion will NOT bar B from bringing Lawsuit 2 against A.

What is the test to determine whether an FRCP is authorized by the Rules Enabling Act?

Does the FRCP really regulate procedure or relate to the practice or procedure of the federal courts?

Jury trials are never required before non-Article III courts (such as courts created pursuant to Congress's Article I authority).

FALSE

Rule 14 prohibits the third party defendant from bringing a counterclaim against the defendant who brought the third party claim against it.

FALSE

The Hannah Court held that the decision before it was governed by the Rules of Decision Act and the Erie line of cases interpreting that statute.

FALSE

The Hannah Court's test as to the validity of the FRCPs subjects the rules to searching scrutiny and ensures that there is a meaningful check on the Supreme Court's power in promulgating such rules.

FALSE

The Supreme Court in Finley overturned the Gibbs case.

FALSEq

If the federal law is from an FRCP or a federal statute and is on point/conflicting with the state law, what is the result?(Select all that apply)

Federal law will apply as long as the rule is valid (which it will be). The Rules of Decision Act and the Erie cases that interpret it are inapplicable.

If the opposing party moves for summary judgment before discovery is finished and you lack admissible evidence with which to respond, but believe that you will be able to counter with evidence after you have completed discovery, what should you do?

File an affidavit with the court explaining that you cannot now present the evidence but believe you will have evidence once you finish the stated discovery

What is the test to determine the constitutionality of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure?

Is the FRCP rationally capable of being classified as procedure?

3 parts to if rule 19 requires dismissal for an action..

Is the absent party required/necessary? Is joinder of the absent party feasible? Is the absent party indispensable and thus the action must be dismissed?

After Hannah, the first question to ask in any potential Erie analysis is:

Is the federal law from an FRCP or a federal statute?

Determining whether someone being precluded is a "party or in privity" for issue preclusion

Is the same as it is for claim preclusion because it is rooted in Due Process

When the jurisdiction-conferring claim is diversity, the supplemental jurisdiction statute does which of the following in regard to claims joined under R.20? (Select all that apply)

It does not prohibit (and thus expressly allows) supplemental jurisdiction over claims by multiple plaintiffs against a defendant. It expressly prohibits supplemental jurisdiction over claims by a plaintiff against multiple defendants

When analyzing an Erie issue, if a federal court determines that a state law constitutes procedure bound up with substance, which way does that determination lean?

It leans toward application of the state law

When there are alternative determinations in the first case, each of which was actually litigated and decided and each of which on its own is sufficient to support the judgment, what will be issue preclusive in a subsequent case?

Jurisdictions are split on whether to accord issue preclusive effect to both or neither alternative determinations or whether to use a case-by-case approach.

The Supreme Court has held that the collateral order doctrine does not apply to which of the following types of orders (select all that apply)? Correct!

Orders compelling attorneys to turn over documents that the attorney argues are privileged -Orders sanctioning attorneys for discovery violations -Orders granting or denying class certification -Orders denying a dismissal for forum non conveniens

The Supreme Court has held that the collateral order doctrine applies (and thus an interlocutory appeal is permitted) for which of the following types of orders (select all that apply)?

Orders staying a federal proceeding to allow a parallel state court proceeding to win the race to judgment (also called abstention) Orders requiring the posting of a substantial bond as a pre-filing requirement -orders denying immunity

In the Cohen case, the Supreme Court determined which of the following about the application in federal court of a state rule requiring the posting of a substantial bond as a pre-condition to bringing a shareholder derivative suit under state law?

That federal courts had to apply the state bond requirement.

If a state law is determined to be procedure bound up with substance, and the competing federal law is an essential characteristic of the federal system for administering justice, which law should apply?

The Supreme Court has not determined which should apply in this situation

An error in the jury instructions can be the basis for the granting of a new trial, but generally only if what has occurred?

The attorney timely objected to the erroneous instruction.

Once the movant for summary judgment has satisfied its burden of production, what happens?

The burden of production shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial and that summary judgment should not be granted against the nonmovant.

When filing a motion for summary judgment, what is the burden of production?

The burden on the moving party to show through the existing evidence that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; once satisfied, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that there is a genuine issue for trial and that summary judgment should be denied..

Under Rule 20, the standard for joining multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants in a case is:(Select any or all that apply)

The claims by the multiple plaintiffs or defendants must share a common question of law or fact. The claims by the multiple plaintiffs or defendants must arise out of the same transaction or occurrences.

If the defendant moves for summary judgment on an affirmative defense, what must the defendant do to fulfill the burden of production?

The defendant has only one option--he must produce affirmative evidence that demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to each and every element of the affirmative defense.

If the defendant moves for summary judgment on a claim being brought against the defendant, what must the defendant do to fulfill the burden of production?

The defendant has two options--the defendant can bring affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff's claim against him, OR the defendant can show that the plaintiff lacks any evidence to establish one or more of the elements of the claim against him.

Rule 19 is usually raised by which of the following methods?

The defendant moves under 12(b)(7) to dismiss the action for failure to join a Rule 19 party.

James and Emily are in a car wreck. James sues Emily for negligence in Suit 1. Emily raises the defense of contributory negligence to the suit, which in that jurisdiction acts as a complete bar to recovery if proven. There is no compulsory counterclaim rule in the jurisdiction. A jury enters a general verdict in favor of James. In Suit 2, Emily sues James for negligence, and James raises a defense of contributory negligence. What findings from Suit 1 can be issue preclusive in Suit 2?

The jury must have found both that James was not negligent and Emily was negligent, and both findings will be issue preclusive in Suit 2 because both were actually litigated and decided and essential to the judgment.

James and Emily are in a car wreck. James sues Emily for negligence in Suit 1. Emily raises the defense of contributory negligence to the suit, which in that jurisdiction acts as a complete bar to recovery if proven. There is no compulsory counterclaim rule in the jurisdiction. A jury enters a special verdict finding both James and Emily negligent, and the court enters judgment in favor of Emily. In Suit 2, Emily sues James for negligence, and James raises a defense of contributory negligence. What findings from Suit 1 can be issue preclusive in Suit 2?

The only finding that is issue preclusive in Suit 2 is the finding that James was negligent. Although Emily's negligence was actually litigated and decided, it was not essential to the judgment.

If a plaintiff moves for summary judgment on a claim that she has brought, what must the plaintiff do to fulfill her burden of production?

The plaintiff has only one option--she must produce affirmative evidence that demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to each and every element of the claim.

in general who has the burden of proof at trial

The plaintiff has the burden of proof at trial to establish any claims brought by the plaintiff against others; the defendant has the burden of proof at trial to establish any affirmative defenses.

Rule 14 authorizes the bringing of both a downsloping claim (from the third party defendant against the original plaintiff) and an upsloping claim (from the plaintiff against the third party defendant. What is the joinder standard for bringing these claims?

The upsloping or downsloping claim must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant.

In response to Finley, Congress passed the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1367. What did Congress intend to do in this statute?(Select all that apply)

To overturn Finley, and allow supplemental jurisdiction over the addition of multiple parties. To codify the basic holding and test of Gibbs. To codify the Court's ruling in Kroger.

A major function of both Rule 19 and Rule 24 is:

To protect absentees (nonparties to the initial action) from practical prejudice.

What are the two causes of action that are most often brought as third party claims against a third party defendant?

contribution indemnity

By default (without language in the order that would alter this), which dismissals are not considered to be "on the merits."

dismissal of proper venue dismissal for failure to join a rule 19 party dismissal for lack of PJ

For purposes of the final judgment rule, a final judgment is one that

ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment

A movant must move for summary judgment on the entire case--the movant cannot move for partial summary judgment as to a particular claim or a part of a claim or defens

false

Because Rule 13 is not listed in 28 USC 1367(b), there will always be supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims and crossclaims, even when diversity is the basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the jurisdiction conferring claim.

false

If summary judgment is filed against you, you can withstand the motion by relying on your own allegations in your pleadings.

false

When a federal court has the judicial power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse state law claim, it is required to adjudicate the claim and lacks the discretion to decline jurisdiction.

false

After Erie, which of the following represents the basic, simplified dichotomy as to federal courts when adjudicating state law claims

fed procedural law state substantive law

If failure to apply the state law in federal court is outcome determinative, but the competing federal law is an essential characteristic of the independent federal system for administering justice, then which law should apply?

federal law

When analyzing joinder of additional claims and/or parties, one must ask two questions--what are they?

is there SMJ over each claim? Is joinder proper (ascertained by identifying the appropriate joinder rule and applying its standard)?

Which word in the Seventh Amendment is understood to define the availability of the right created thereby?

preserve

South Carolina enacts a new workers' compensation statute. In doing so, the statute specifically provides that the determination of whether an injured worker should be considered an "employee" under the statute must be determined by a judge. The legislative history of the statute explains that the rationale for this provision is to ensure that an impartial judge will determine who is an employee under the statute because juries have a history of being swayed by sympathy for injured workers and have made their determinations based, not on the law, but on what determination will result in the largest award for the injured worker. Under a Byrd analysis, how would this state statutory provision be characterized?

procedure bound up with substance

Horizontal Choice of Law

selecting between competing law of states

Vertical Choice of Law

selecting between federal and state law

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, if State Court B is trying to determine whether the case before it is precluded by a prior judgment entered by State Court A, then State Court B will need to apply which?

the preclusion laws of State A, the judgment-rendering court.

Which of the following interpretations of "claim" for Claim Preclusion is the most broad and will most often lead to preclusion of subsequent litigation?

transactional

"The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant]."

true

7th amendment limits ability of fed courts to grant new trials

true

At the time of Swift, judges did not view themselves as "making" law at all, but instead viewed themselves as only describing and discovering the one true law.

true

Compulsory counterclaims will always satisfy 1367(a)'s requirement of being part of one constitutional case as the original claim.

true

Congress did not want to change the law regarding subject matter jurisdiction over class actions, and apparently left out Rule 23 entirely by mistake.

true

If a federal court determines that the addition of supplemental state-law claims will overly complicate the case and lead to jury confusion, the federal court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

true

If a juror makes racially discriminatory comments about the parties during jury deliberations, that can be the basis for obtaining a new trial for prejudicial misconduct

true

In Finley, the Supreme Court refused to extend supplemental jurisdiction to situations involving the addition of multiple parties.

true

In determining whether the first case resulted in a final judgment on the merits for issue preclusion, the analysis is the same as it was for claim preclusion.

true

In enacting 28 USC 1367, Congress intended overturn Finley, but to codify the law created by both Gibbs and Kroger.

true

In order for a claim with independent subject matter jurisdiction to confer supplemental jurisdiction over a related non-diverse state-law claim, the claim with independent subject matter jurisdiction must be substantial, meaning it is nonfrivolous and has some colorable merit.

true

In order to apply 28 USC 1367(b) to any given situation, you must be able to correctly identify the Rule number (from the FRCPs) under which the claim was joined.

true

In order to obtain a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, a party must show all three of the following: 1) that the evidence is newly discovered; 2) that it could not have been discovered with due diligence before the judgment; and 3) that it would likely change the outcome of the case.

true

Joint tortfeasors are NOT Rule 19 necessary/required parties. Plaintiffs are not required to join all joint tortfeasors as defendants, and an action that does not sue all joint tortfeasors will not be dismissed under Rule 19. The Supreme Court explained that if one tortfeasor is sued and another is not, the defendant tortfeasor should simply implead the nonparty tortfeasor through Rule 14--rather than seeking to have the action dismissed under Rule 19.

true

Judges can engage in prejudicial conduct that warrants the granting of a new trial.

true

Justice Ginsburg interprets the Rules Enabling Act and the Erie line of cases to uphold diverse state interests and state substantive policies.

true

Justice Scalia interprets the FRCPs very broadly so that state law is displaced in the favor of federal uniformity in federal court procedure.

true

One of Ms. Finley's claims had exclusive federal subject matter jurisdiction and so it could only be brought in federal court. Her other two claims were state law claims against parties with whom she shared citizenship. Thus she could not file all of her claims state court.

true

Permissive counterclaims are simply defined as any counterclaim that is not compulsory.

true

Some courts and commentators view Byrd as creating a simple balancing test where the court just evaluates which interests weigh in favor of application of state law against the interests that weigh in favor of application of federal law, and applies the law for which the interest is strongest. Correct!

true

Supplemental jurisdiction will not exist over permissive counterclaims even when federal question is the basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the jurisdiction conferring claim.

true

The Gibbs Court indicated that if the claims over which the federal court held independent subject matter jurisdiction were dismissed prior to trial, then the federal court should exercise its discretion to dismiss the state law supplemental claims. However, if the dismissal occurred after trial--as it did in the Gibbs case itself--then the federal courts could continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the non-diverse state law claims even after the federal claims over which there is independent subject matter jurisdiction were dismissed.

true

The Supreme Court clarified that if you lose a motion for summary judgment and then have a full trial on the merits, you can not appeal the denial of the motion for summary judgment.

true

The Supreme Court has emphatically said that the applicability of the collateral order doctrine is not determined on a case-by-case basis. Instead, the applicability of the collateral order doctrine is decided categorically to types of cases.

true

The Supreme Court in Finley hinted that perhaps supplemental jurisdiction was unauthorized given that there was not a statute specifically authorizing the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

true

The Supreme Court said ingesting drugs and alcohol was an intrinsic influence on the jurors and thus could not be used to obtain a new trial.

true

The judge instructs the jury on the law that the jury should apply to the facts.

true

The part of the Hannah decision that modified the York outcome-determinative test was dicta.

true

The term "Res Judicata" is generally used to refer specifically to Claim Preclusion, but sometimes it is used to refer to preclusion in general.

true

There is not a federal constitutional right to an appeal in either civil or criminal cases.

true

Under Swift, the federal courts believed that the state courts would be impressed by their interpretations of general common law and would conform state common law to the federal pronouncements.

true

judge can grant a new trial motion sua sponte

true

summary judgment is not trial by affidavits

true

judge can grant a motion for summary judgment sua sponte

true (rule 56(f)

judge can grant summary judgment for non movant

true, rule 56

The Supreme Court expressly disapproved of "virtual representation."

true`

If a federal case involves a claim where there is no jury trial right and also a counterclaim with a jury trial right that has been properly demanded, what should the federal court do?

try the counterclaim first to preserve the right to jury trial

John, a citizen of Connecticut, sustains permanent scalp discoloration after trying Chia-Hair-for-Men, a new hair restoration product made by Hair Restoration Inc. (a Delaware Corp. with its corporate headquarters in New York). John files a class action against Hair Restoration Inc., asserting state products liability claims, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut with himself as the class representative. John's damages easily exceed $75,000, but many members of the class have damages significantly below $75,000. Additionally, some members of the class are citizens of New York. John defines the class as consisting of "all consumers who used and sustained injuries from Chia-Hair-for-Men between its release on January 1, 2019, to the date of filing this action, April 5, 2021." Records indicate that around 5,000 consumers tried Chia-Hair-for-Men during that time. Apparently due to a design defect, one of two possible side effects were produced for most users. Some users sustained permanent scalp discoloration, like John. Others sustained a substantial increase in hair loss, which John did not sustain.

use for next questions 1)which is correct: It likely should also be limited to consumers in a specific geographic area. limited to certain time frame 2)Which is true as to johns satisfaction of the typicality req: The typicality requirement could be satisfied by adding a new class representative who suffered increased hair loss. johns injury is not typical of the whole class John could satisfy the typicality requirement for this class by further limiting his class definition to consumers who suffered permanent scalp discoloration. 3)Johns class action will meet the numerosity req? -true 4)In determining whether there has been adequate representation, the court will evaluate the adequacy of: John as class rep johns attorney as class counsel 5)John's class will be which type of class action? 23(b)(3) 6)John would be required to do which of the following for this class?(Select any or all that apply) - Provide members of the class with notice. -Pay for the notice to the class, which may be a recoverable cost if John prevails. -provide members of the class with the opportunity to opt out of the class. 7)If the district court determines than an additional class representative is needed, and John selects as an additional class representative Harry, who is citizen from New York, which is true? Independent jurisdiction could not exist because Harry, the new class representative, would destroy complete diversity. Correct! Supplemental jurisdiction over the new class representative's (Harry's) claim could not exist because his claim would contaminate the entire case and thus there would not be an original action over which the district court would have original jurisdiction and 1367(a) would not be satisfied.

When a judge adjudicates a motion for summary judgment, the judge:

views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant must draw reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the nonmovant esolves any credibility determinations in favor of the nonmovant cannot weigh the evidence

when do erie questions arise

when a fed court is adjudicating a state law claim

If you are sued and do not respond to the lawsuit and a default judgment is entered against you, in a subsequent lawsuit or enforcement proceeding, which is correct?

you will not be able to bring any claims in the subsequent proceeding that should have been brought as compulsory counterclaims in the action you defaulted on.