Dan Lund for the defense…….

I know Lund from his work in construction law. He has a good reputation among his peers and should do an exemplary job for the Louisiana portion of the Jones Walker malpractice saga. Louisiana portion??? Yep but before I get to that I have this:

Consent Motion and Order

Here is the deal folks. The plaintiff’s contract was with a Mississippi lawyer working on a Mississippi court case thus there is no connection to the forum to which the suit was shopped. In fact there is only one court that really has jurisdiction over this matter far as I can see and luckily for everyone less than seven months ago Judge Susie Morgan issued a quality opinion that gives the answer. I think this part explains it very nicely:

However, supplemental jurisdiction extends to certain claims that are so related to a claim in an action within the court’s jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. The critical question is whether supplemental jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1367 over Robert’s claim in intervention against the Territas.

Section 1367(a) and (b) provide as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve joinder or intervention of additional parties.

(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

So boys and girls using that expert and sage analysis name that forum. Winning answer in comments gets to pick the next musical selection.

4 thoughts on “Dan Lund for the defense…….”

  1. Hmm, old Dan still kicking. Recall seeing his name in the Plaquemines Parish Government versus Delta Development case in the 1980s.

    1. Good to see some practitioners from the 1970s and 1980s around and about, Truitt. Have to dig into the archives to se which family member he was representing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *