Dominant Trap Same Parties Efficiency
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Civil Procedure1
Example wrong choices
21114_counterclaim-crops · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because the promissory-note counterclaim does not arise from the same case or controversy as the combine-harvester suit and has no independent jurisdictional basis.
Why it's attractive
The choice says a defendant may NEVER file a counterclaim in federal court. That is facially false — defendants file counterclaims routinely. Cut on sight.
Why it's wrong
The choice says a defendant may NEVER file a counterclaim in federal court. That is facially false — defendants file counterclaims routinely. Cut on sight.
21114_counterclaim-crops · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CYes, because the parties are already before the federal court and judicial efficiency favors hearing both claims together.
Why it's attractive
This is the dominant trap. It feels right because the parties ARE already in court and hearing both claims IS more efficient. But 'same parties' and 'efficiency' are not the legal test. The test is 'common nucleus of operative fact' — overlapping evidence and events. These two claims have nothing in common factually.
Why it's wrong
This is the dominant trap. It feels right because the parties ARE already in court and hearing both claims IS more efficient. But 'same parties' and 'efficiency' are not the legal test. The test is 'common nucleus of operative fact' — overlapping evidence and events. These two claims have nothing in common factually.
21114_counterclaim-crops · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because a defendant may never assert a counterclaim in federal court.
Why it's attractive
Rule 13 really does permit counterclaims — that part is true. But Rule 13 governs pleading, not jurisdiction. A court can have a properly pleaded counterclaim and still lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear it. The choice conflates two separate gates.
Why it's wrong
Rule 13 really does permit counterclaims — that part is true. But Rule 13 governs pleading, not jurisdiction. A court can have a properly pleaded counterclaim and still lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear it. The choice conflates two separate gates.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →