United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - 606 F. Supp. 185
In the 1985 case Podhorn v. Paragon Group, Inc., Paul and Liana Podhorn and their child sued their landlord, Paragon Group, for issues related to their rental in Missouri. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri heard the case. Paragon Group had already brought a state court case against the Podhorns for unpaid rent, which resulted in a default judgment against them. The Podhorns didn't raise any counterclaims in that case.
Later, the Podhorns sued Paragon Group in federal court, claiming diverse citizenship and raising multiple claims about their tenancy. Paragon Group asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that these claims should have been raised as compulsory counterclaims in the state court case. The district court agreed, holding that under both Missouri and federal law, the Podhorns' claims were compulsory counterclaims arising from the same transaction or occurrence: their tenancy in Paragon Group's apartment.
The court clarified that even if the Podhorns' claims exceeded the state court's jurisdiction, they still should have filed them as part of the state court case. They could have been transferred or certified to a higher state court if needed. This case serves as an example of how courts apply different theories of jurisdiction and choice of law in diversity cases, as well as how they interpret and apply various civil procedure rules, like those governing compulsory counterclaims.
The defendants in a civil action have filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, which includes various claims arising from the plaintiffs' tenancy at the defendants' apartment building. The defendants argue that the claims should have been filed as a compulsory counterclaim in a previous state court action for rent due. The court finds that the plaintiffs' claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the defendant's rent action in a previous state court case, and therefore, the plaintiffs were required to file their claims as compulsory counterclaims. Failure to do so bars them from having those claims heard. The plaintiffs argue that the state court lacked jurisdiction to hear their counterclaim if filed due to the statutory limit on the sum demanded, but the court disagrees and asserts that the compulsory counterclaim rule applies in this action before an associate circuit judge.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.