Friday audio: Section B, Section A. Section A meets at 12:30 on Wednesday. Essay # 5 due in class Wednesday. Essay # 6 will post on Wednesday.
A clarification on our different versions of VOA.
• If VOA and BSO are not diverse, there is almost certainly supplemental jurisdiction over VOA's actual state law claims--they are part of the controversy over BSO's use of the photos during the 2012 season.
• If VOA and BSO are diverse, the fictional old contract claim can be brought--FRCP 18(a) does not require relatedness and there is an independent basis for jurisdiction (§ 1332).
• If VOA and BSO are not diverse but the fictional old claim is for Trademark infringement, it can be brought--FRCP 18(a) does not require relatedness and there is an independent basis for jurisdiction (§ 1331 and § 1338).
• The problem is if the fictional old claim is for breach of contract and they are not diverse--FRCP 18(a) is ok but there is no independent basis for jurisdiction and § 1367(a) requires relatedness.
Again, this is how § 1367 limits FRCP 18(a). And it is why it is better for the party to find jurisdiction under § 1331 or § 1332.
Prep the rest of Supplemental Jurisdiction; try to make heads or tails of § 1367(b). We will begin with the connection between the joinder standard under the FRCP and the jurisdictional standard under § 1367--how do the standards relate and what does that mean in terms of the claims that can be brought and whether there is jurisdiction? Be ready to analyze Jones and the counterclaim in Kinsmann.
Then prep Removal, working the connection among the statutory provisions.
I hope to finish SMJ on Thursday and begin PJ that day and into Friday.
