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

MCI (P) sued Logan (D) for nonpayment of telephone bills. D defended in that there were misbillings and that P have purposely failed to pay D for money collected for a 900 service. Fidelity filed a claim to intervene in that it had been assigned the accounts receivable of D and had informed P of that assignment. Before purchasing the receivables, Fidelity contract P had P had assured Fidelity that the monies were due and would be paid. P refused to pay on the grounds that an unrelated party TRI, owed P money. Fidelity sued for fraud and breach of contract. Fidelity relied upon Rule 24 (a) in that it would not be able to protect its interest in the accounts unless it intervened. No parties opposed the intervention, and at least one of the claims had a question of fact in common with the main action. Fidelity then moved for leave to amend, and the court ordered Fidelity to show a proper basis for federal jurisdiction over Fidelity's claims. Fidelity conceded there was no diversity jurisdiction but claimed that the court had supplemental jurisdiction.

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.