1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions Forum
- 24secure
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:27 pm
1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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.
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.
- mallard
- Posts: 1075
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
I think this is the precise situation in which supplemental jurisdiction serves a purpose.
-
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:03 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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.24secure wrote: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.
- 24secure
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:27 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
Well I didn't mean destroy diversity as it relates to A suing B. I mean diversity can't be used to bring the claim against C in federal court.caoyun wrote: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.24secure wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:54 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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.24secure wrote: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 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...
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- 24secure
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:27 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
Well crap, guess I got that little essay wrong...kdawg666 wrote: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.24secure wrote: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 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...
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:13 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
yes - so long as it is from the common nucleus of operative fact.
- Blindmelon
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
Bingo.. if P impleads for a counterclaim then bye-bye 1332 jurisdiction if that 3rd party D has the same domiciliary as a 1st party D.kdawg666 wrote: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.24secure wrote: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 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...
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:00 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
I thought Allapattah said that non-diverse parties across the V contaminates the original basis for providing a federal forum.
- superserial
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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...zizou wrote:I thought Allapattah said that non-diverse parties across the V contaminates the original basis for providing a federal forum.
- vamedic03
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
I'm not quite sure what you're asking:24secure wrote: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.
C doesn't effect the diversity between A & B b/c C is a 3d party defendant
There has to be good 1367(a) supp. jur. over C b/c there must be a derivative liability claim for R14 impleading
1367(b) doesn't apply to B v. C as 1367(b) only applies to the original plaintiff in the diversity action
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:35 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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?
- vanwinkle
- Posts: 8953
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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.illegalcheeser wrote: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?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Objection
- Posts: 1272
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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.superserial wrote: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...zizou wrote:I thought Allapattah said that non-diverse parties across the V contaminates the original basis for providing a federal forum.
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.
So, for example A (NJ) sues B (NY) for $100,000, and A wants to join C(NY) as a rule 20 plaintiff. It will not be allowed, no matter what his amount in controversy is.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.
However, if C is from MA, it will be allowed.
Side question: What exactly is the procedure for rule 20? Can only the current plaintiff in the lawsuit invoke it? Otherwise, it would be rule 24, correct?
- superserial
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
yeah you're right, my class didn't focus on that part of the holding, which is why I didn't remember it, but I just checked because it's better than doing contracts.Objection wrote: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.superserial wrote: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...zizou wrote:I thought Allapattah said that non-diverse parties across the V contaminates the original basis for providing a federal forum.
the amount in controversy exception apparently doesn't undermine the reason for allowing federal SMJ in the first place (that a dispute is sufficiently important to warrant federal attention), whereas making an exception for a P who destroyed diversity would (there would no longer be concerns about bias).
conclusion: Congress needs to stop being illiterate.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:35 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
vanwinkle wrote: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.illegalcheeser wrote: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?
So you're saying that a "third-party plaintiff" aka original defendant isn't bound by 1367(b)?
- Objection
- Posts: 1272
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
That's correct.illegalcheeser wrote:vanwinkle wrote: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.illegalcheeser wrote: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?
So you're saying that a "third-party plaintiff" aka original defendant isn't bound by 1367(b)?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- nmoor1501
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:27 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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?
- nmoor1501
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:27 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
If a party is already joined, why do we even need supp jx? I am totally missing all of this... fmlnmoor1501 wrote: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?
- mallard
- Posts: 1075
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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.
- superserial
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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.nmoor1501 wrote:If a party is already joined, why do we even need supp jx? I am totally missing all of this... fmlnmoor1501 wrote: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?
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- vanwinkle
- Posts: 8953
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
This. The court still needs jurisdiction over what's being joined in order to join it. Supplemental jurisdiction can provide that.mallard wrote: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.
Last edited by vanwinkle on Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- nmoor1501
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:27 pm
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
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?superserial wrote: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.nmoor1501 wrote:If a party is already joined, why do we even need supp jx? I am totally missing all of this... fmlnmoor1501 wrote: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?
- mallard
- Posts: 1075
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
You are still not seeing the difference. Not only can jurisdiction not get you joinder, joinder cannot get you jurisdiction.
- vanwinkle
- Posts: 8953
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am
Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions
You need to find jurisdiction to allow the joinder. 1367 can provide that. In fact, since 1367 provides a wide blanket of jurisdiction for most other claims arising from the same case or controversy, it almost always ends up providing supplemental jurisdiction for joined claims. The only reason it wouldn't is because 1) the new claim isn't from the same case or controversy at all (an unrelated claim), or 2) it's excluded by 1367(b) or 1367(c).nmoor1501 wrote: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?
The new action being joined can also have original jurisdiction if it meets those requirements. For example, if you have a diversity action, and the counterclaim is brought under some federal Civil Rights statute, the counterclaim may not have supplemental jurisdiction because it may not be related to the same controversy as the original claim, but it can still be original jurisdiction as arising from federal law.
Jurisdiction provides a basis for the court to hear the joined claim. Without jurisdiction the court has no power over the claim and it can't be joined.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login