Quick question.

Lets say A is suing B in federal court in a diversity suit, and B brings in C under Rule 14. B and C are from the same state, so diversity jurisdiction is destroyed. Is supplemental jurisdiction in this case allowed since C was brought in by the defendant and not the plaintiff? Or are any parties that are brought in under Rule 14, 19, 20, and 24 not allowed to be brought in based on supplemental jurisdiction?

Thanks.

I'm not sure an impleader can destroy diversity. Otherwise, it would allow defendant's to prevent a case from being brought in federal court more or less at will.

Quick question.

Lets say A is suing B in federal court in a diversity suit, and B brings in C under Rule 14. B and C are from the same state, so diversity jurisdiction is destroyed. Is supplemental jurisdiction in this case allowed since C was brought in by the defendant and not the plaintiff? Or are any parties that are brought in under Rule 14, 19, 20, and 24 not allowed to be brought in based on supplemental jurisdiction?

Thanks.

Yep, under 1367(a) this is acceptable (assuming the claim is related to the case or controversy) -regardless of whether the court had original jurisdiction founded under 1332 (diversity). 1367(b) only applies to plaintiffs, not defendants or third party defendants for that matter.

So basically, when ever you have a plaintiff asserting an additional claim, make sure the party the plaintiff is asserting the claim against has not been added under 14, 19, 20...

Also, there is an exception to the 1367(b) rule that was in the Exxon v. Allapath case where a plaintiff joined permissively under rule 20 can assert claims against parties added under 14, 19, 20...

Yep, under 1367(a) this is acceptable (assuming the claim is related to the case or controversy) -regardless of whether the court had original jurisdiction founded under 1332 (diversity). 1367(b) only applies to plaintiffs, not defendants or third party defendants for that matter.

So basically, when ever you have a plaintiff asserting an additional claim, make sure the party the plaintiff is asserting the claim against has not been added under 14, 19, 20...

Also, there is an exception to the 1367(b) rule that was in the Exxon v. Allapath case where a plaintiff joined permissively under rule 20 can assert claims against parties added under 14, 19, 20...

I thought Allapattah said that non-diverse parties across the V contaminates the original basis for providing a federal forum.

Quick question.

Lets say A is suing B in federal court in a diversity suit, and B brings in C under Rule 14. B and C are from the same state, so diversity jurisdiction is destroyed. Is supplemental jurisdiction in this case allowed since C was brought in by the defendant and not the plaintiff? Or are any parties that are brought in under Rule 14, 19, 20, and 24 not allowed to be brought in based on supplemental jurisdiction?

Thanks.

So, if B brings in C for indemnification as a third party defendant, but those two parties are diverse, do we not even have to consider supplemental jurisdiction as the court already has original jurisdiction?

that case said that under 1367(b) you can join plaintiffs under Rule 20 who don't meet the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction if one of the plaintiffs does...

For instance, we have consistently interpreted §1332 as requiring complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806); Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U. S. 365, 375 (1978). The complete diversity requirement is not mandated by the Constitution, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 530-531 (1967), or by the plain text of §1332(a). The Court, nonetheless, has adhered to the complete diversity rule in light of the purpose of the diversity requirement, which is to provide a federal forum for important disputes where state courts might favor, or be perceived as favoring, home-state litigants. The presence of parties from the same State on both sides of a case dispels this concern, eliminating a principal reason for conferring §1332 jurisdiction over any of the claims in the action.

In order for a federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under Gibbs, it must first have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action. Incomplete diversity destroys original jurisdiction with respect to all claims, so there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can adhere.

I'm almost positive that Exxon also held -- or at least indicated strongly -- that a rule 20 plaintiff who destroys diversity of citizenship is not permitted to join, as this would effectively eviscerate Strawbridge.

If the amount is over $75,000, then you could separately have original diversity jurisdiction there. If not, supplemental jurisdiction still authorizes this if it's not over that amount. However, 1367(a) gives extremely broad supplemental jurisdiction for pretty much all claims revolving around the same case or controversy, and 1367(b) only takes it away for plaintiffs adding defendants in certain cases where it would destroy complete diversity of the original dispute. So supplemental jurisdiction may allow it even if B and C are not diverse.

So you're saying that a "third-party plaintiff" aka original defendant isn't bound by 1367(b)?

I don't really understand these exceptions and I keep trying to figure it out in my head, but it is not working. I am going to go over joinder soon and maybe that will clear things up, but for now... does supp jx of party work together with joinder? I thought supp jx was an independent basis for bringing in another party. Why doesn't the P just join under supp jx and not the FRCP rules?

If a party is already joined, why do we even need supp jx? I am totally missing all of this... fml

You're confusing the meaning of jurisdiction and joinder. You need jurisdiction in order to effectuate the joinder without violating something or other. Joinder is the mechanism; jurisdiction is the basis.

you always need jurisdiction. joinder does nothing for you if a court doesn't have PJ over all the parties or SMJ over the case. 1367 expands the situations in which a federal court has SMJ.

Ok so when I am dealing with joinder, do I need to go look at 1367 and make sure that there is jurisdiction to allow joinder? OR is the joinder rule sufficient for determining that? In that case, why would I need supp jx at all?