- Alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act.
- Rule 13(a): Compulsory counterclaims—shall state... if it arises out of same transaction—must bring it them.
- Rule 13(b): Permissive—may state any claim that has...
- Rule 13 like Rule 18, can always sue them back—why do we care if compulsory or permissive counterclaim, since defendant has chosen to bring it?
- Jurisdiction because if it's compulsory (that is, arises out of same transaction or occurrence), then it provides basis for being in federal court
- Permissive—Rule 13(b): have to independently provide justification for being in federal court.
- So does collection counterclaim arise out of same transaction or occurrence as Truth in Lending claim?
- Will they use the same evidence/contract?
- Lender: you signed this valid contract, and you didn’t pay.
- Plaintiff: whether I knew it or not, you didn't go through steps federal law requires.
- Why does Blazer really want counterclaim?
- To deter people from bringing actions—if they can counterclaim, they can deter plaintiffs.
- But this would deter enforcement of Truth in Lending Act.
- But also run risk of flooding federal court with picky collection counterclaims—not the right place for collections actions!
- Basics in Rule 13(a)'s approach to what constitutes a transaction for these purposes.
Class notes and materials by a law student for law students.
Plant v. Blazer