Civil Procedure: Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)
📄 FREE CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
Download here: link coming soon.
📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/law-school
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/bar-exam
Free courses: studicata.com/free-courses
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/groups/community
Testimonials: studicata.com/testimonials-an...
Submit a review: shoutout.studicata.com
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/android
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: info@studicata.com
Learn more: studicata.com
🎬 VIDEO INFO
Civil Procedure: Civil Procedure: Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)
00:00 Introduction
00:15 Requirements for a Court to Hear and Decide a Case
00:41 How a Federal Court Obtains Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
02:01 Supplemental Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367
09:00 3-Step Approach (§ 1367(a)-(c))
10:22 Step 1: § 1367(a) - Qualifying for Supplemental Jurisdiction
11:40 "Common Nucleus of Operative Fact" Test
13:58 Practice Problem 1.0
20:32 Practice Problem 2.0
26:21 "Same Transaction or Occurrence" Test
31:12 Practice Problem 3.0
44:18 Step 2: § 1367(b) - Legislative Intent
45:35 Understanding the Purpose of § 1367(b)
53:03 Step 2: § 1367(b) - Disqualifications
58:19 Practice Problem 4.0
1:04:40 Step 3: § 1367(c) - Discretionary Factors
1:12:40 Practice Problem 5.0
1:21:40 Conclusion
Primary sources of law for this video:
28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
Polaris Pool Systems v. Letro Products, Inc., 161 F.R.D. 422, 425 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Plant v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 598 F.2d 1357, 1361 (5th Cir. 1979).
Revere Copper Brass v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 426 F.2d 709, 715 (5th Cir. 1970).
Ambromovage v. United Mine Workers of America, 726 F.2d 972, 990 (3d Cir. 1984).
Enochs v. Lampasas County, 641 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2011).
Viacom International v. Kearney, 212 F.3d 721, 727 (2d Cir. 2000).
Learn more: studicata.com
Пікірлер: 13
Bro you are the GOAT where is your law review?
love the lectures. money well spent. excited for venue!
Thank you so much! All of your videos are so helpful. I am preparing for midterm exams and love your videos.
I LOVE these man! Thank you so much for putting soo much effort into these videos. Im a 1L currently and I'm studying for Civ Pro Final. So helpful.
@studicata
8 ай бұрын
I'm glad the videos have been helpful! Wishing you the best on your finals! 🙏
@sudhakafle9057
4 ай бұрын
I ok
Those sighs were real. No one can teach civ pro and be happy to do it lol. Thank you though it was great
Excellent lecture!
Where are the lessons on Rule 14, 19, 20, and 24 posted?
I'm struggling with calififornia family law, commissioners holding on to the stipulation to Jurisdiction to Commissioner post judgement....
Looking at problem 3.0, what if after the counterclaim the P impleads a non-diverse third party in a state law claim (say an insurance co), do we look back at the counterclaim or the first claim as for whether it's related? If looking at the counterclaim, would there be SJ for it if the CC itself is only there because of SJ. The latter seems weird becasue you're basically drawing SJ from a claim that has SJ.
@JMM575
7 ай бұрын
i have this exact question
Who can move the case forward if the private employer and state judges and the council from the state insurance and the lawyer of the state insurance committed conspiracy against the demandant person who demanded his or her rights who can move forward the case if the conspirator are the state laws 🫵🏻? ?