the landowner is entitled to possession of the property which is embedded in or attached to the property. If the book was placed upon the table by a transient customer of the place, this property is treated as a mislaid property. In this situation, the finder has not valid claim against the property or the place owner. He is only entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner or the prior possessor.
This essay attempts to shed light on the driving factors behind this problem before outlining several viable solutions that should be adopted to tackle it
Margaery is fuming at Cersei and her council that the Throne must respond at once to the ironmen's attack on the Shield Islands. Cersei does not appreciate the young queen's tone, and claims that it must fall to Highgarden to retake "these rocks".
Loras Tyrell interjects as his sister seethes, stating that his brothers Willas and Garlan have the men, but not the ships, to win back the islands. He requests that Cersei pull Lord Redwyne's fleet from their siege of Dragonstone, so they may return to gather troops at the Arbor.
The Queen Regent denies his request, implying that the Redwyne fleet would not depart until Dragonstone fell. Knowing that Lord Paxter intended to starve them out, Ser Loras asks leave to lead the assault, and promises Cersei Dragonstone within a fortnight. Pleased by this unexpected "gift", Cersei grants him permission.
Returning to her apartments, Pycelle objects to her sending Loras, but Cersei is hoping the knight will die besieging the walls of Dragonstone; but if not, she would still strike a blow against Stannis.
When she meets Qyburn, he mentions that he has a "champion" to replace Loras should he fall. Cersei is not so sure of Qyburn's "paragon", and informs him that the smiths she hired believe the weight of the armor he requested cannot be borne by a human.
Later, in bed, Lady Taena asks her certain questions; Cersei becomes concerned the woman may report her answers to Margaery. But Taena assures her that all her secrets are safe. However, their chat is interrupted by a guard pounding on her door with word that Falyse Stokeworth begged to see her.
Cersei finds the woman battered, and listens to the tale of her husband's death. After Bronn defeated him in single combat, but before killing him, Bronn forced Ser Balman to confess who put him up to this. Bronn then told Falyse to leave immediately or meet the same fate.
When Falyse told her mother's guards to arrest Bronn, they laughed and told her to listen to "Lord Stokeworth". Fearful that Falyse would spread rumors of Cersei's involvement, Cersei summons Lord Qyburn so that he could take another female subject to his lab in the black cells.
Back in her room, a very inebriated Cersei contemplates how to deal with Bronn, and then begins to fondle Taena, "claiming her rights as queen" the way Robert would do to her when he was drunk.
Upon reaching the Quiet Isle, Brienne and her companions are taken up the path to see the Elder Brother. Brienne mentions to the brother guiding them that she is heading for Saltpans to kill the Hound.
This takes the man aback, but he tells them to speak to their elder. They see a huge horse in their stables, obviously a war horse, who has mauled two of the brothers. On a hill, they pass a huge cloaked novice digging graves. The man appears lame, but they cannot see his face.
The Elder Brother speaks further of the horrible raid on Saltpans, made worse by the fact that Ser Quincy Cox hid behind his castle walls and did nothing to help the villagers.
After dinner, the Elder Brother speaks in private with Brienne. He asks what she seeks in Saltpans, and when she mentions a highborn girl, the elder knows she refers to Sansa. He lets on that it is the wrong Stark she seeks, for the Hound captured Arya.
Shocked that both of Lady Catelyn's daughters may yet be alive, she is equally surprised when he informs her that Sandor Clegane is dead. The Elder Brother has buried his corpse himself, and left the hound's-head helm on the grave. It was some other outlaw who found and wore it when they raided Saltpans.
He goes on to tell her that he took pity on Sandor before he died, and will only say that "he is at rest" when she asks if he is truly dead. The elder remarks that the horse in their stables was the Hound's, Stranger.
The Elder Brother then tells her that he was once a knight who fought for Prince Rhaegar at the Trident. He took several terrible wounds in the battle and fell into the river, yet awoke upon the shores of the Quiet Isle.
He urges her not to be another casualty of this war, and return home. Brienne breaks down and cries, telling him her story, finishing with, "I have to try to save her... or die in the attempt."
Rule 801(c): “Hearsay” means a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
A statement is not hearsay if it is offered to prove something that is not dependent on the truth of the matter asserted. For example, it is not hearsay if offered foreffect on the listener, impact, or notice. Not hearsay if inconsistent statements are offered to impeach (show that they are a wishy-washy witness, don’t actually care if the first one was true), legally operative words typically arn’t hearsay.
First hearsay exception you go to is use against a party opponent, a statement may be entered against a party opponent if it was made in their individual capacity, if they affirmed it to be true (can be done by silence if a reasonable person would respond and they had the opportunity to respond), if it was made by someone they authorized to speak for them on the subject, if it was made by their agent or employee, or if it was made by their coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. For 801(2)(2), must establish that the two were in a coconspiracy, the statement was made during the conspiracy and that it furthered it.
2) For a declarant witness’ prior statement, is admissible if it is a (1) inconsistent statement that was made under penalty of perjury (2) consistent statement that is being brought to rebut express/implied charge of fabrication/improper motive or to rehabilitation credibility attacked on other grounds (3) statement identifying a person as someone the dec. perceived earlier.
Exception 3: Present Sense Impression Made while or immediately after event or condition (describing or explaining)
Exception 4: Excited Utterance: statement made in light of an objectively startling event or condition that while dec. was unter the subjective stress of excitement
Exception 5: then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition (1) their own existing state of mind (motive, intent, plan) OR Condition (mental, pain, bodily health) BUT NOT including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed UNLESS it relates to the validity or terms of the dec’s will.
Exception 6: Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment (1) Made for- and reasonably pertinent to- diagnosis or treatment; and (2) Describes medical history, past or present statements, their inception, or their general cause. Statements to Family Members: if declarant tells a family member so they can tell it to a doctor or nurse, the hearsay exception will apply to the declarant’s statements
Exception 7: Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity Record was made at or near the time by, or from info transmitted by, someone with knowledge. Record was kepot in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling. Making the record was regular practice of that activity All of these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness; and The opponenet does not show that the source or method or circumstances of prep that the record indicates a lack of trustworthiness
Exception 8: Public Records: A record or statement of a public office if: Sets out the office’s activities, A matter observed while under legal duty to report, or In a civ case or against GOV in crim case, factual finding from a legally authorized investigation, and The opponent does not show that the show that the source of the info or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness
In a criminal case, public records do NOT include a matter observed by law enforcement (a police report) (ok in civ case) Consider when doing confrontation clause questions: if it’s a police report, not admissible period under this exception AND cc blocks
Exception: Records of Docs that Affect an Interest in Property (1) The record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded doc along with its signing an its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it (2) The record is kept in a public office and (3) statute authorizes recording docs of that kind in that office
Exception: Statements in Ancient Documents: A statement in a document that was prepared before Janurary 1, 1998 and whose authenticity is established
Exception: Statement in learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets, The statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross examination OR relied on by the expert on direct examination; and the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’’s admission or testimony, or by another excerpt’s testimony or by judicial notice If the statement from any of these is admitted, then the statement may be read into evidence but NOT received as an exhibit
Rule 804: Unavailable witnesses Generally, (a) declarant is unavailable and (b) evidence falls under a particular class of testimony. (a) A declarant unavailable if: (1) Exempted b/c privilege applies to the subject matter asked to testify about (2) Refuses to comply with ct order to testify (3) Testifies to not remembering the subject matter (4) Cannot be present or testify b/c of death, physical, or mental illness (5) Absent from trial and the proponent has not been able to procure by process or reasonable means- Dec’s attendance in the case of a hearsay exception under 804(b)(1) or (6); or Dec’s attendance or testimony, in case of exception 804)b)(2)-(4)
804(b)(1): Former testimony: Was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful depo, whether given during the current proceeding or in a different one, the party against whom the testimony is offered had the opportunity and a similar motive to question the witness at the previous proceeding, and the witness took an oath and was subject to cross-examination at the previous proceeding
804(b)(2): Statement under belief of imminent death In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant made while believing the declarant’s death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.
Exception 804(b)(3): Statement against interest (1)Reasonable person in dec’s position would have only made the stmt only if the person believed it to be true b/c it was so contrary to dec’s proprietary or pecuniary interest (this applies to all cases); and (2)Supported by corroborating circumstances in crim case that clearly indicate its trustworthiness (does not apply to civil cases)
804(b)(4) Statement of Personal or Family History: Statement about Dec’s own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, etc. even though Dec had no way of acquiring personal knowledge of that fact; or Another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death if dec was related to the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the person’s family that the dec’s info is likely to be accurate.
804(b)(6). Statement Offered Against a Party that Wrongfully Caused Dec’s Unavailability: Statement is admissible if offered against a party that wrongfully caused, or acquiesced in wrongfully causing, a dec’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.
When the weather is nice, flying a kite is fun. It helps if there’s a light wind. However, a strong wind can blow the kite away. Find a wide-open spot. You don’t want trees, power lines, or traffic lights in the way. Your kite could get stuck on them. If your kite gets stuck, ask a grown-up for help. Don’t try to get it yourself.
Also, be sure there’s nothing to trip on. You might not see what's on the ground while watching your kite in the sky. An empty ball field, a field, or a beach might work best.
A kite flies when the wind catches it. There’s a string attached to one side and a tail on the bottom. The tail helps to balance it in the sky and makes the bottom half heavier than the top. Your job is to hold onto the string and keep the kite flying.
Stand with your back to the wind to get your kite in the air. Hold onto the spool of string. Lift the kite so the wind blows into it. If it doesn’t go right up, run into the wind. Keep checking behind you to see how the kite is doing. The more string you release, the higher the kite can go. Hang onto that spool of string! Sometimes, the kite can pull hard, so you have to use all your strength.
Your kite may come crashing to the ground the first time you try. Once you’ve had some practice, you’ll get better at keeping it in the air.
When the weather is nice, flying a kite is fun. It helps if there’s a light wind. However, a strong wind can blow the kite away. Find a wide-open spot. You don’t want trees, power lines, or traffic lights in the way. Your kite could get stuck on them. If your kite gets stuck, ask a grown-up for help. Don’t try to get it yourself.
Also, be sure there’s nothing to trip on. You might not see what's on the ground while watching your kite in the sky. An empty ball field, a field, or a beach might work best.
A kite flies when the wind catches it. There’s a string attached to one side and a tail on the bottom. The tail helps to balance it in the sky and makes the bottom half heavier than the top. Your job is to hold onto the string and keep the kite flying.
Stand with your back to the wind to get your kite in the air. Hold onto the spool of string. Lift the kite so the wind blows into it. If it doesn’t go right up, run into the wind. Keep checking behind you to see how the kite is doing. The more string you release, the higher the kite can go. Hang onto that spool of string! Sometimes, the kite can pull hard, so you have to use all your strength.
Your kite may come crashing to the ground the first time you try. Once you’ve had some practice, you’ll get better at keeping it in the air.
The issue is determining who has the prior right of possession over the goat.
The general rule regarding wild animals is that the person who kills or mortally wounds the animal with intent establishes the right of possession.
In this case, Walt, as a hunter, could argue that he has the prior right of possession because he intentionally chased and shot the animal. He might claim that the blood on the ground indicated the animal was mortally wounded, even though he failed to recover it. Additionally, Walt could argue that he used a rifle, which is the standard tool in the hunting industry. Even if he did not immediately capture or kill the goat, the rifle mark could identify him as the one who killed it. In the Whale case, the court held that when a custom is universally accepted within an industry, it can serve as a mark of ownership.
Louie, as the landowner, could argue that he has constructive possession of the animal because it was found on his property, Blackacre. Landowners are generally regarded as having prior possession of any animals found on their land, even if they have not physically taken possession.
Goofy, as the original owner of the goat, could argue that he has the prior right of possession. The goat’s ear bore the mark “GG,” and Goofy operated a well-known goat farm in Greenacre. This evidence undermines Walt’s claim in two significant ways:
1. The goat was not a wild animal but a domesticated one, making Walt’s argument regarding wild animals inapplicable.
2. Walt shot the goat from a distance of approximately 100 meters. At this range, as an experienced hunter, he should have been able to recognize the ear mark and distinguish the goat’s behavior as domesticated rather than wild.
Walt’s argument is likely to fail.
Between the landowner and the original owner, the general rule is that the landowner, as a finder, has a prior right of possession against everyone except the original owner. Thus, Goofy’s ownership claim would prevail over Louie’s argument. However, since the goat was found on Louie’s land, Goofy may need to compensate Louie for trespassing to retrieve the goat.
Liefste
Er was eens een koning
en die las aan alle mensen
een brief voor over 't nieuwe jaar
met wat hij hen wou wensen.
Hij sprak over gezondheid,
geen ruzie of verdriet.
Heel het land blij en gelukkig,
gemor en oorlog liever niet.
Vandaag is weer een jaar gestart
en daarom dacht ik plots:
ik pak het als die koning aan
en lees mijn brief vol trots.
Maak van dit jaar een groot succes,
iets leuks voor elke dag.
Dan sta ik hier ook volgend jaar
weer met een grote lach.
Van je koninklijke kapoen
...............................................
1 januari 2025
Jaime's small host reaches Castle Darry, and he finds himself contemplating the genius of his uncle Kevan for his choice of a bride for Lancel, Amerei Frey, whose mother is a Darry.
He has dispatched Red Ronnet to accompany Wylis Manderly to Maidenpool, but nevertheless he has too many men to be fed at his cousin's new castle. Jaime takes note of all the armed Freys and "sparrows" in the castle, far outnumbering Lannister men.
Darry's maester greets Ser Jaime, surprised by this unexpected visit, and tells him that Kevan departed right after the wedding, and that Lancel is praying in the sept. The maester provides him with Lancel's own room, since Jaime's cousin has taken to sleeping in the sept.
As Jaime bathes before the guest feast, he notices that Josmyn Peckledon, his new squire, wishes to bed Pia. Jaime tells him to use Lancel's room for his first bedding, saying, "You'll feel a lord yourself when you're done, if Pia knows her business."
But Jaime warns him to treat her kindly, perhaps due to his own guilt for refusing the girl when Qyburn sent her during his recuperation at Harrenhal.
At the feast, Jaime learns that his cousin has been fasting since the old High Septon died. Lancel also does not join them for dinner. Lady Amerei begs Jaime to stay and help them defeat Lord Beric Dondarrion, the Hound, and the other outlaws.
He learns that the outlaws seem to be following a woman now, cloaked and hooded, and no one has seen Beric Dondarrion for a while. Jaime's companion Strongboar claims to be moved by Ami's words, and promises to return after they take Riverrun to sort out the Hound. Jaime leaves the table and goes to the sept. Three armed sparrows bar his path, but Lancel lets him in.
Lancel admits that his father left after they quarrelled, and that he does not intend to consummate his marriage. And then he admits his greatest sins: serving the wine that resulted in King Robert's death, and that he had been sleeping with Cersei.
Lancel states that he plans to forsake his title as Lord of Darry, and head to King's Landing to swear vows as a Warrior's Son. When Jaime learns that Cersei has rearmed the faith, he is almost as upset by this as he is to discover that Tyrion was not lying about Cersei's infidelity.
Later, in the yard, Jaime admits to Ser Ilyn that he slept with Cersei when she was at Castle Darry with Robert. Cersei wanted him to get Arya Stark and he would have killed her had he found her first.
Mōwiōm: richtig Ślōnzŏk - ôn chce jyno ordnōng. Drobnŏczkōm daje pozōr, robota mŏ porzōmnŏ... A jŏ wōm gŏdōm: Szlus! Bajtlyne fandzolynie! Nojbarzij ślōnskŏ rzecz: ze swoimi sie wadzynie!
Było fest wczas rano, ulice czyste i prōzne. Szołch na banhof. Jakech porōwnoł zygor na wieży ze swojim zygarkym, toch spōmiarkowoł, że już było moc niyskorzij, niż żech myśloł. Musioł żech sie uwijać.
Skirz szoku tego ôdkrycio niy bōł żech zicher drōgi, niy znoł żech jeszcze tak dobrze tego miasta. Szczyńściym szandar bōł blisko, pognołch dō niego i ze ciynżkim dychym spytołch go ô drōga.
Ôn sie uśmiychnōł i prawiōł: – Ôdy mie chcesz znać drōga? – Ja – pedziołch – bo sōm niy poradza znojś. – Dej pokōj! Dej pokōj! – ciepnōł i ôbrōciōł sie ôdy mie ze nogłym szarpniyńciym, jak ludzie, co chcōm być sami ze swojim śmiychym.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A defendant asserting qualified immunity has the burden of proving the defense.
Absolute immunity is complete immunity from liability generally afforded to prosecutors, judges, and the president of the United States. Absolute immunity defeats a suit for damages at the outset so long as the official’s actions are within the scope of the immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits the federal court from granting any relief to a Plaintiff if they name the State as a Defendant in her § 1983 suit. The way to overcome this immunity is for Plaintiff to name the State Officer as a Defendant in his or her official capacity. Then, under Ex Parte Young, the federal court may grant Plaintiff the injunction against the future enforcement of the state law by the State Officer on the grounds that the law violates the federal Constitution. Under the Ex Parte Young doctrine, when a state official acts in an official capacity and violates federal law, that official loses his or her Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A defendant asserting qualified immunity has the burden of proving the defense.
Absolute immunity is complete immunity from liability generally afforded to prosecutors, judges, and the president of the United States. Absolute immunity defeats a suit for damages at the outset so long as the official’s actions are within the scope of the immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits the federal court from granting any relief to a Plaintiff if they name the State as a Defendant in her § 1983 suit. The way to overcome this immunity is for Plaintiff to name the State Officer as a Defendant in his or her official capacity. Then, under Ex Parte Young, the federal court may grant Plaintiff the injunction against the future enforcement of the state law by the State Officer on the grounds that the law violates the federal Constitution. Under the Ex Parte Young doctrine, when a state official acts in an official capacity and violates federal law, that official loses his or her Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A defendant asserting qualified immunity has the burden of proving the defense.
Absolute immunity is complete immunity from liability generally afforded to prosecutors, judges, and the president of the United States. Absolute immunity defeats a suit for damages at the outset so long as the official’s actions are within the scope of the immunity. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits the federal court from granting any relief to a Plaintiff if they name the State as a Defendant in her § 1983 suit. The way to overcome this immunity is for Plaintiff to name the State Officer as a Defendant in his or her official capacity. Then, under Ex Parte Young, the federal court may grant Plaintiff the injunction against the future enforcement of the state law by the State Officer on the grounds that the law violates the federal Constitution. Under the Ex Parte Young doctrine, when a state official acts in an official capacity and violates federal law, that official loses his or her Eleventh Amendment immunity.
A federal court, in the exercise of its diversity jurisdiction, is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting, including that state’s conflict of law rules. However, the federal courts apply federal procedural law.
If there is no federal statute or rule on point, it must be determined whether that law on that issue is substantive or procedural to determine what law should be applied.
If it is a matter of substance, the federal judge must follow state law in a diversity case. If it is a matter of procedure, the federal judge may ignore state law.
Some situations, such as statutes of limitations, choice of law rules, and elements of a claim or defense, are well-established as substantive issues, and federal courts must apply state law.
However, if the law’s classification can not be clearly established, the court must use one of the tests to determine if state or federal law should apply. The outcome-determinative test holds that an issue is substantive if it substantially affects the outcome of the litigation.
A federal court has federal question jurisdiction over a suit when the suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action, on its face, shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.
Under Mottley, a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action, on its face, shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.
Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised; (2) actually disputed; (3) substantial; and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, federal courts shall have original, diversity jurisdiction over lawsuits where the parties on both sides of the suit are completely diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Complete diversity of citizenship exists if no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.
Concerning individuals, citizenship is determined by their domicile at the time of filing the suit. For an individual to establish their domicile, they must have physical presence with intent to remain in the state. An individual may only have one domicile at a time. The mere residence is not enough. A person retains their original domicile until they establish another. If one represents the interests of another, i.e., infants, incompetents, or decedents, then they retain the citizenship of the one represented.
A corporation is domiciled in its (1) place of incorporation and (2) its principal place of business. The principal place of business refers to where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities, a nerve center. This is typically the corporation's headquarters.
Unincorporated associations are domiciled wherever the members of the organization are domiciled.
The lack of diversity between any plaintiff and defendant destroys it for all parties.
Jurisdiction is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed. Jurisdiction is unaffected by subsequent changes in the parties' citizenship so long as the court has jurisdiction when the suit is filed.
If a plaintiff later amends a complaint and such a complaint destroys diversity, then the court loses its jurisdiction over that claim.
The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of any costs and interest. The plaintiff’s good faith allegation in his complaint controls the amount in controversy.
A single plaintiff with two or more unrelated claims against a single defendant may aggregate claims to satisfy the statutory amount.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, federal courts shall have original, diversity jurisdiction over lawsuits where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and suits between citizens of different states.
Concerning individuals, citizenship is determined by their domicile at the time of filing the suit. For an individual to establish their domicile, they must have physical presence with intent to remain in the state. An individual may only have one domicile at a time. The mere residence is not enough. A person retains their original domicile until they establish another. If one represents the interests of another, i.e., infants, incompetents, or decedents, then they retain the citizenship of the one represented.
A corporation is domiciled in its (1) place of incorporation and (2) its principal place of business. The principal place of business refers to where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities, a nerve center. This is typically the corporation's headquarters.
Unincorporated associations are domiciled wherever the members of the organization are domiciled.
The lack of diversity between any plaintiff and defendant destroys it for all parties.
Jurisdiction is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed. Jurisdiction is unaffected by subsequent changes in the parties' citizenship so long as the court has jurisdiction when the suit is filed.
If a plaintiff later amends a complaint and such a complaint destroys diversity, then the court loses its jurisdiction over that claim.
The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of any costs and interest. The plaintiff’s good faith allegation in his complaint controls the amount in controversy.
A single plaintiff with two or more unrelated claims against a single defendant may aggregate claims to satisfy the statutory amount.
Supplemental jurisdiction is invoked where a supplemental claim arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the original claim, whether the case got into court by diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction. Essentially, this means that the two claims must arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
For cases that are in federal court based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction may not be used to support claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24; claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19; and claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24.
Federal courts can decline jurisdiction over a claim if it (1) raises a novel or complex issue of State law; (2) substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (3) the district court has already dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) in exceptional circumstances where there is reason to decline jurisdiction.
