Answer:
definitely
............................
Explanation:
idfk
The part after he tries to steal her purse.
A ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Answer:
Hi! The answer would be option C. Yes, because the defendant’s counterclaim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
Explanation:
A federal court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim that does not satisfy the jurisdictional amount when the counterclaim is compulsory. However, a permissive counterclaim does not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction and therefore must satisfy the jurisdictional amount and the rule of complete diversity. Here, the defendant's claim that the plaintiff owes her money does not arise out of the same transaction and occurrence as the plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim is permissive and must meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. Answer choice A is incorrect. Although the parties must maintain complete diversity, a permissive counterclaim must also meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. Answer choice B is incorrect. Although the federal district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims, a permissive counterclaim needs to meet the requirements for federal subject-matter jurisdiction (either diversity or federal question). Answer choice D is incorrect. While it is true that the defendant's counterclaim is not compulsory, it would be possible for the federal court to assert diversity jurisdiction had the defendant met the amount-in-controversy requirement. Therefore, D is not the best answer choice.
