Citation. 606 F. Supp. 185
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here Brief Fact Summary.
After being sued for back rent, Podhorn subsequently brought suit for constrictive eviction.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
All claims rising out of the same transaction or occurrence as a pending suit must be filed regardless of jurisdictional issues; otherwise you lose your right to bring such claims.
Facts.
Before this case, Paragon filed suit against Podhorn for rent that was owed. The lower court found for Paragon Group and awarded the back rent. Subsequently, in this suit, Podhorn filed suit for constructive eviction, breach of implied warranty of habitability, false swearing, false credit reports, breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and abuse of process, prima facie tort, conversion, and malicious prosecution. Paragon Group filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that those claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been previously filed.
Issue.
Whether compulsory claims must be filed, even if the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the new claims. Yes. It is true that the court where Paragon Group filed its rent claim did not have jurisdiction over the Podhorn’s counter claims. However that does not alleviate the responsibilities to file those claims. It would be up to the court to determine jurisdiction and transfer the case to an appropriate court house. These claims arose from the same transaction and occurrence. Since the Podhorns did not file these claims previously they have lost their rights to. Court dismissed the action.
Held.
Yes. It is true that the court where Paragon Group filed its rent claim did not have jurisdiction over the Podhorn’s counter claims. However that does not alleviate the responsibilities to file those claims. It would be up to the court to determine jurisdiction and transfer the case to an appropriate court house. These claims arose from the same transaction and occurrence. Since the Podhorns did not file these claims previously they have lost their rights to. Court dismissed the action.
Discussion.
Same transaction for this case arose out of the tenancy. The same transaction is not just a single event.
