Wigglesworth v. Teamsters Local Union No. 592
68 F.R.D. 609 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law counterclaim is permissive, not compulsory, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13, and thus requires an independent basis for federal jurisdiction if it is not logically related to and does not arise from the same set of operative facts as the plaintiff's primary federal claim.
Facts:
- Welford Wigglesworth, Jr. was a member of Teamsters Local Union No. 592.
- At union meetings on September 8, 1974, and October 13, 1974, Wigglesworth was allegedly prevented from exercising his right to freedom of speech.
- During these meetings, Wigglesworth's request to have the union membership informed of their rights under federal law was also denied.
- On December 3, 1974, Wigglesworth held a press conference.
- At the press conference, Wigglesworth accused the union of being dominated by the "Mafia" and alleged that a past local union election had been "fixed."
Procedural Posture:
- Welford Wigglesworth, Jr. filed a complaint against Teamsters Local Union No. 592 and its president in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging violations of the Labor Management Reporting Disclosures Act.
- The defendants filed an answer and asserted a counterclaim for libel, slander, and malicious abuse of process under state law.
- The plaintiff, Wigglesworth, filed a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's state law counterclaim for libel and malicious abuse of process, based on a plaintiff's public statements made on the same day the complaint was filed, arise from the same "transaction or occurrence" as the plaintiff's initial claim regarding events at prior union meetings, thereby making it a compulsory counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Warriner, District Judge
No. A defendant's state law counterclaim for libel and abuse of process does not arise from the same "transaction or occurrence" as the plaintiff's primary federal claim when the facts and evidence required to prove each are entirely distinct. A counterclaim is compulsory, and thus within the court's ancillary jurisdiction, only if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim. The court adopts the "same evidence" test, which asks if the same evidence would substantially dispose of the issues in both the claim and the counterclaim. Here, the plaintiff's claim centers on events at union meetings in September and October, while the defendants' counterclaim is predicated on statements made at a press conference in December. The evidence for the primary claim is irrelevant to the counterclaim, and vice-versa. Therefore, the counterclaim is permissive and must be dismissed because it lacks an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, as there is no diversity of citizenship or federal question involved. The counterclaim also does not qualify for the narrow "set-off" exception, which applies to liquidated claims arising from contract or judgment, not unliquidated tort claims.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the distinction between compulsory and permissive counterclaims, reinforcing the principle of limited federal court jurisdiction. By favoring the 'same evidence' test over the more flexible 'logical relationship' test in this context, the court establishes a stricter standard for what constitutes the same 'transaction or occurrence.' This decision serves to prevent defendants from using unrelated state-law tort claims as a strategic tool to complicate federal question litigation, which could otherwise have a chilling effect on plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their federal statutory rights. It ensures that federal courts are not forced to adjudicate purely state-law disputes that are only tangentially related to the core federal issue at hand.
Unlock the full brief for Wigglesworth v. Teamsters Local Union No. 592