Civil Procedure: Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) (Pt 2: Amount in Controversy Requirement)

📄 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: [e-mail]
Learn more: studicata.com
🎬 VIDEO INFO
Civil Procedure: Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) (Pt 2: Amount in Controversy Requirement)
00:00 Introduction
00:18 Requirements for a Court to Hear and Decide a Case
00:41 How a Federal Court Obtains Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
01:53 Diversity Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
05:13 Amount in Controversy Requirement Overview
06:46 Exclusion of Interests and Costs
15:38 Legal Certainty Test
25:51 Actions for Equitable Relief
28:40 Practice Problem 1.0
32:59 Aggregation of Claims
34:42 Determining Whether Claims can be Aggregated
37:18 Single P Joins Multiple Claims Against Single D
38:49 Multiple Parties Joined on 1 or More Claims
42:11 Practice Problem 2.0
47:29 Practice Problem 3.0
50:00 Practice Problem 4.0
51:29 Defendant Counterclaims Against Plaintiff
51:54 Practice Problem 5.0
53:12 Test-Taking Strategy
55:49 Conclusion
Primary sources of law for this video:
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
14B Wright Miller, Fed. Prac. Proc. § 3725 (3d ed. 1998).
Bronner v. Duggan, 364 F. Supp. 3d 9, 22 n.13 (D.D.C. 2019).
St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938).
Tongkook America, Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear, 14 F.3d 781, 785 (2d Cir. 1994).
McDonald v. Patton, 240 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1957).
Deutsch v. Hewes Street Realty Corporation, 359 F.2d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 1966).
McCarty v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 595 F.2d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 1979).
Ronzio v. Denver R.G.W.R. Co., 116 F.2d 604 (10th Cir. 1940).
Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 290 F.2d 11, 13 (5th Cir. 1961).
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1263 n.7 (11th Cir. 2000).
Cornell v. Mabe, 206 F.2d 514, 516-17 (5th Cir. 1953).
Learn more: studicata.com

[@tazlinarhetoric4543]

I just wanted to thank you for making these videos. I'm studying for the bar exam now, and I had been relying exclusively on Barbri, which for some reason was just not clicking with me. On a whim, I decided to see if CZcams could recommend any review videos, and I've been taking notes on your Civil Procedure videos ever since. I plan on still watching the Barbri reviews (because I paid good money for them), but I'm learning the most from you (and all those helpful graphics you include). Thank you.

[@JDsimplified]

Always great explanations. You trim the excess material without leaving out anything important.

[@theodorevegh6030]

I love your videos. They help me understand the subjects you cover.

[@henlohenlo689]

what about if defendant is 2 parties joinder. but it is many indictments many laws broken on various employment law business law contract law fraud law etc etc. some of the indictments apply to 1 of the 2 companies and other indictments to both. it also involves class action but also direct type of claims.
would this all be able to be within 1 lawsuit?

[@mudpie6927]

So 75 and one cent