วีดีโอ

Hi! Dave and Denise are actually in the same configuration as they were in the previous suit. I explain it before and after this example. In the previous action between them (the impleader) Dave was the plaintiff (3rd party P) and Denise was the defendant Denise was a third party D. Rewind back a minute or two and watch again that explanation please because it's very important.

My pleasure

@@mitraesmaeili1458 so glad!

You are so welcome! These comments totally make my day. Part II is coming soon!

My pleasure! These comments absolutely make my day!

I guess I don’t get the “same question of fact or law” concept…

I'm a 1L student too, so take with a grain of salt, but say a contract was breached by defendant assaulting the plaintiff. This would definitely fall within the same transaction or occurrence.

@@Maddymacch my pleasure! Please spread the word ❤️

Yes, I talk about it in minute 30:09 of the video. Venue in Removed actions follows 28 USC 1441(e).

Here it is th-cam.com/video/HBMEeB-2VaM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DbLAM8y3xwkmJMJD&t=1811

Thank you for such a great compliment. Do you mind if I post this comment on my site?

@ go head!

@ thank you!

@@dragoncrash1234 so so glad they've been valuable!

@@GC-zj2ou then there is no diverse parties, meaning there is no subject matter jurisdiction by way of diversity. Check now if there is SMJ by way of Federal Question. If you watch all the videos in order: Intro to SMJ, Diversity I and II, and Federal Question, then Removal will make perfect sense.

Hi! This is part of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Personal Jurisdiction is a completely different animal. If you watch my intro to subject matter jurisdiction, it will explain the differences. Also please watch my lesson on Personal jurisdiction, without skipping. I promise to make it worth your while.

My pleasure! Please spread the word!

@@hoffmanpk My pleasure! Please spread the word. And thanks for the love, these comments make my day.

@@stellarscrubj you are very welcome! I'm so so glad they are adding value to your studies!

You are very very welcome. So glad this video was valuable.

My pleasure!

You are very welcome. So glad it was helpful.

So glad to hear you found my videos valuable! I am just now unloading the newest version of this topic (Supplemental Jurisdiction). If you decide you need a review, make sure you watch the new version. Good luck on your exam!

Yes, bringing P2 in would be contamination and it would not be allowed in the first place. That is the concept I was trying to explain with this example. P2 from Georgia (rather than Utah as previously) cannot be joined to the lawsuit without destroying Diversity, as shown on the illustration. Let me know if you have any more questions! Thank you for watching!

@@JDsimplified Thank you! I think I didn't articulate myself perfectly though. At 57:19, when P2 turns into a Ga P rather than a Fl P, I realize why he can't sue D on a separate claim at this point, but can he even join P1 through 19,20, or 24 on the main 76k state claim before he even tries the separate 10k claim? The joinder or intervention has to come before the potential 10k state claim right? Maybe that's what you already answered, but I'm getting a little confused.:( Edit: I think I get it now after watching a bunch of times. Basically, 1367 can overcome some hurdles, but not the diversity hurdle on cases with a diversity (or 1367(b)) backbone that try to insert the same state on each side of the arrow. I have a problem overthinking sometimes. 🙃

@@arielhu4569 Yes, for Venue to be proper, the state must have PJ over the D. This means the court in that state has the legal authority to adjudicate a case against D based on D's connection to the state.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Yes, the "state of incorporation only" rule for residence for purposes of venue applies to patent infringement cases only. I should reword that last paragraph. Residence for purposes of venue for any business entity would be where it is subject to personal jurisdiction. For corporations this means state of incorporation and PPB. Thank you for the heads up!

Thank you! I just recorded the updated version. Email me, questions@jdsimplified.com and I'll send it to you.

So so glad you found it helpful. Talk to me, which part of parts are still making you cry like Kim?

Thanks for reaching out. What did you mean by your comment: 1:07? thank you

@@cathyclark5102 thank you!! I can never get enough of these comments. I'm so so glad it was helpful.

Hi! email me questions@jdsimplified.com

In this lecture. You need to watch the whole thing; lol. I promise the lecture gets better.

@@originalgangsta794 you're very welcome. Happy it was educational and valuable.

@@charliesvids I never get tired of these type of comments. So so glad this video was helpful. Thank you for the compliment.

@@TheSaintlo Awe! Thank you. I hope the lesson was valuable to your studies.

😢 STATE OF NEVADA = State of Nevada = Federal territory within a state state of Nevada = Nevada (state) Caps mean a proper noun: a person, place, or thing that is distinguished from the ordinary use of that noun.

I'm so so glad it was valuable to you! You're so very welcome.

😆😆😆