Court Opinion

ID: 9650958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:57:35.903633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:27.874721
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Dunnell’s petition for rehearing contends for the first time that Stores’ counterclaim is not within the jurisdiction of the district court because, although the parties are of diverse citizenship, the issue raised as to the $3,000 value of the “matter in controversy” was not supported by the evidence.
We do not agree that jurisdiction is lacking. Assuming, but not deciding, that the matter in controversy is not more than $3,-000, the counterclaim arises out of the transactions and occurrences which are the subject matter of Dunnell’s complaint. Hence, being within federal equity jurisdiction, it was a “compulsory counterclaim,” and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 13 (a), 28 U.S.C.A., requires “any claim” so arising to be counterclaimed, whatever its amount. Cf. Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, 609, 46 S.Ct. 367, 70 L.Ed. 750, 45 A.L.R. 1370; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Kaufman, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 398, 401; Horwitz v. New York Life Insurance Co., 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 295, 301.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
HEALY, J., dissents.