Can you destroy diversity through supplemental jurisdiction using impleader? Forum

[Gamecubesupreme]

Say a defendant of State B wants to implead his insurance company (third party defendant) from State A in a suit based solely on diversity started by a plaintiff from State A.

If I'm reading the rules on impleading correctly, this is actually allowed because the third-party defendant from State A can be impleaded via supplemental jurisdiction, right? Thus even if insurance company and plaintiff are both from State A, you are allowed to destroy diversity for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Cause otherwise it doesn't make sense if a defendant can't implead his insurance company simply because the plaintiff and the company are domiciled in the same state.

[kellyfrost]

Yes, you are correct.

[gtg]

Say a defendant of State B wants to implead his insurance company (third party defendant) from State A in a suit based solely on diversity started by a plaintiff from State A.

If I'm reading the rules on impleading correctly, this is actually allowed because the third-party defendant from State A can be impleaded via supplemental jurisdiction, right? Thus even if insurance company and plaintiff are both from State A, you are allowed to destroy diversity for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Cause otherwise it doesn't make sense if a defendant can't implead his insurance company simply because the plaintiff and the company are domiciled in the same state.

But if P then tries to bring a claim against the third party in the same action, that won't fly right? Even if there's the supplemental jurisdiction, there's no diversity and P can't do it? Or am I completely wrong?

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

This seems weird because it is basically a strategic, defensive move by the D to ensure the suit gets dismissed.

[Gamecubesupreme]

Say a defendant of State B wants to implead his insurance company (third party defendant) from State A in a suit based solely on diversity started by a plaintiff from State A.

If I'm reading the rules on impleading correctly, this is actually allowed because the third-party defendant from State A can be impleaded via supplemental jurisdiction, right? Thus even if insurance company and plaintiff are both from State A, you are allowed to destroy diversity for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Cause otherwise it doesn't make sense if a defendant can't implead his insurance company simply because the plaintiff and the company are domiciled in the same state.

But if P then tries to bring a claim against the third party in the same action, that won't fly right? Even if there's the supplemental jurisdiction, there's no diversity and P can't do it? Or am I completely wrong?

I believe the rule is that if the original claims are based exclusively on diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction will not apply to claims by the plaintiff against a third-party defendant brought in under Rule 14 (impleader). Such claims need to meet diversity or federal question jurisdiction requirements on their own.

[Gamecubesupreme]

This seems weird because it is basically a strategic, defensive move by the D to ensure the suit gets dismissed.

Oh sorry, when I say "destroy diversity," I didn't mean the case would violate subject-matter jurisdiction.

I meant there would be no diversity jurisdiction, but SMJ would still be in-tact, which is generally NOT the case in other situations.

I'm guessing the rationale (which does make sense) for that is otherwise, like you said, D can implead insurance companies to get suits dismissed for lack of SMJ.

[BrokenMouse]

.

[ElBence]

Little late to this answer, but I don't think so. Here's why. 12(b) motions are acceptable alternatives to an answer if moved for as the motion and nothing else. Answers must be filed within 21 days of service. If a defendant fails to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but instead files an answer within that 21 days, then the right to move for that 12(b) defense is waived. The court may raise it at any time and dismiss without prejudice, but defendant is unable to assert lack of smj after consenting in an answer. Since failure to implead is not a 12(b) motion, any answer other than initially objecting to smj or another 12(b) motion serves as a waiver to all those defenses. As soon as third party insurance is impleaded, the federal court may, but is not required to, remove the suit to state court. In the interests of administrative efficiency, though, I'd imagine the trier of fact would first determine whether the claim against the insurance had merit. If it's established that the insurance is the true defendant of interest, then removal to state court for lack of any would be proper because at that point, plaintiff and defendant are no longer diverse and original defendant is no longer a party to the suit.

[not guilty]

But....what if you shoot off a firework? we talking hazardous?

[kallaw]

the insurance co comes within the SJ and by the same rule the Citizenship and the amount in Controversy does not matter as the third party D is dragged into the suit by the D (now 3rd party Plaintiff). Therefore, the claim extends to insurance co by the Defendant and does not involve the original Plaintiff. Nonetheless, if the P assert any claim against the newly added party, there is no supplemental Jx.