MCI V. LOGAN GROUP, INC.
848 F.Supp. 86 (1994)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over telephone services.
FACTS: MCI (P) sued Logan (D) for nonpayment of telephone bills. D defended in that there
were misbillings and that P have purposely failed to pay D for money collected for a 900
service. Fidelity filed a claim to intervene in that it had been assigned the accounts
receivable of D and had informed P of that assignment. Before purchasing the receivables,
Fidelity contract P had P had assured Fidelity that the monies were due and would be paid. P
refused to pay on the grounds that an unrelated party TRI, owed P money. Fidelity sued for
fraud and breach of contract. Fidelity relied upon Rule 24 (a) in that it would not be able
to protect its interest in the accounts unless it intervened. No parties opposed the
intervention and at least one of the claims had a question of fact in common with the main
action. Fidelity then moved for leave to amend and the court ordered Fidelity to show a
proper basis for federal jurisdiction over Fidelity's claims. Fidelity conceded there was no
diversity jurisdiction but claimed that the court had supplemental jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment