This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Great Lakes (P) filed an amended complaint against Cooper (D), claiming that D had engaged in unfair competition and unfair business practices. D filed an answer and a counterclaim; it held that P was involved in a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce and that P brought the action for harassment and the elimination of a competitor. P's complaint was based on diversity jurisdiction. The court granted D's motion to dismiss; there was no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Jurisdiction over D's counterclaim was retained; the claim arose under federal law. P filed an answer and counterclaim, which mirrored the allegations of the original amended complaint. D moved to dismiss P's counterclaim; the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. D's motion was granted. P appealed; the court has jurisdiction over the counterclaim because it is a compulsory counterclaim.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.