Stephanie, a California citizen, sues Thomas, a Nevada citizen, in a Nevada state court for breach of contract. Due Process principles require that a judgment may not bind a person who did not have notice of the suit. If the Erie doctrine requires a federal court to follow state law on an issue, the federal court must follow the most recent decision on the issue by the state's highest court. Plaintiff sues defendant to enjoin defendant from breaching an agreement not to compete. Defendant asserts a counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff's attempt to enforce the agreement violates the federal anti-trust laws, and seeks damages for this violation.
Defendant demands a jury trial on the counterclaim.
The Court may decide the validity of the plaintiff's claim before holding a jury trial on the counterclaim. A Rivers was driving a truck owned by Polar when it collided with a vehicle driven by Davis. Polar sued Davis for damage to its truck, and Davis filed a third party complaint against Rivers, seeking contribution or indemnity for Polar's claim against him, and he also asserted a claim against Rivers for his own damages. The jurisdiction where the suit was filed has no compulsory counterclaim rule, and the governing law provides that contributory negligence is a complete defense. The jury found all three parties were negligent and that their negligence had contributed to the collision.