• CivPro News

  • Mass. state court says Web site confers personal jurisdiction over French company
  • Technology & Marketing Law Blog: Consumer Reviews at "Local" Review Sites Don't Support Jurisdiction--Wilkerson v. RSL
  • NC Court Tosses Libel Suit of India News Reports

• Elon

  • Elon Law School
  • Elon University

• Learning Resources

  • CALI
  • Civil Procedure Overview
  • Federal Judicial Center
  • U.S. Courts (Federal Judiciary)

• News & Scholarship

  • Civil Procedure Profs Blog
  • Federal Civil Practice Bulletin

• Statutes & Rules

  • 28 U.S.C.: Judiciary & Judicial Procedure
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(CN) – An Indian television network cannot be sued for reporting rumors that a man pushed his pregnant wife out of a moving car stemming from a fight over dowry, the North Carolina business court ruled.
* * *
About a month after Danius and Pillai obtained a $12 million default judgment against Sun TV in late 2010, the company found a North Carolina attorney and filed a motion to set aside the decision.
The business court agreed on Aug. 12 and dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
“From a time zone marked by a 10.5-hour differential from EST, and in the exercise of due diligence, Sun TV was unable to obtain North Carolina counsel in a timely manner after receiving the complaint,” Judge Calvin Murphy wrote for the court.
“Plaintiffs would not suffer any harm by virtue of any delay occasioned by granting Sun TV the relief it seeks, and Sun TV stands to suffer a grave injustice by virtue of its inability to defend this action.”

(Via Courthouse News Service)

A federal judge deals a well-deserved smack to obnoxious counsel. Jayhawk Capital Management, LLC v. LSB Industries, Inc. (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2011).

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to plaintiffs’ employment status in FedEx Ground Employment Practices Litigation.

• Memorandum of Law of Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. in Support of its Alexander (California) Motion for Summary Judgment
• California Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
• In re FedEx Ground Package Syst., Inc., Employment Practices Litigation, 2010 WL 5094230 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2010)

(Adapted from Spencer, Civil Procedure: A Contemporary Approach (2d Ed. 2007) at 564)

Edwina Engineer is an employee at Insidious Industries, Inc. When she joined Insidious, Edwina signed a non-compete agreement, under which she was restricted from working for competitors of Insidious for a period of three years is she left her job at Insidious for any reason.
Shortly after  complaining to the H.R. director at Insidious about sexual harassment by her manager, Edwina is told that the company is downsizing and that she is being laid-off. Fortunately, Edwina quickly finds a new job with People’s Products, a competitor of Insidious.

1) Insidious files a suit against Edwina in federal court for breach of her non-compete agreement. Assume that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. Edwina wishes to bring her own suit against Insidious alleging that she was actually fired in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII (a federal statute).

a) Is Edwina’s discrimination claim a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a)?
b) Assuming the discrimination claim is not a compulsory counterclaim, may Edwina still bring that claim as a counterclaim in the same action?

2) Same facts as above, but assume that Edwina initiates the litigation by filing her discrimination claim first in federal court. Assume further that (contrary to the previous question) there is no diversity of citizenship between Edwina and Insidious.

1) Is Insidious’s non-compete claim a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a)?
2) Assuming the non-compete claim is not a compulsory counterclaim, may Insidious nonetheless bring that claim as a counterclaim in the same action?

• Search for:

• Tags

  12(b)(6) affirmative defenses amendments choice of law counterclaims diversity jurisdiction ephemera erie exams federal courts FRCP general jurisdiction history human rights humor interpleader joinder jurisdiction law school lawyers behaving badly litigation mandamus minimum contacts motion practice music north carolina personal jurisdiction pleading pleadings practice questions removal Rule 15 specific jurisdiction statutes stream of commerce subject matter jurisdiction summary judgment supplemental jurisdiction Twombly/Iqbal video visual aids

• Recent Posts

  • Erie
  • Supplemental Jurisdiction: Applying sec. 1367
  • Common Meowcleus of Operative Fact
  • Hess v. Meowloski
  • NC Business Court dismisses suit against India TV station on personal jurisdiction grounds
  • I second that (e)motion
  • Motions for Summary Judgment
  • Interpleader: FRCP Rule 22 v. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1335
  • Rule 13 Counterclaim Example
  • Counterclaims Under Rule 13

• Archives

  Select Month November 2011 October 2011 August 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 March 2010

• Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org