1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
24secure
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:27 pm

1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby 24secure » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:57 pm

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.

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby mallard » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:02 pm

I think this is the precise situation in which supplemental jurisdiction serves a purpose.

caoyun
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:03 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby caoyun » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:08 pm

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.


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.

User avatar
24secure
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:27 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby 24secure » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:10 pm

caoyun wrote:
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.


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.


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.

kdawg666
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby kdawg666 » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:15 pm

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.


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...

User avatar
24secure
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:27 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby 24secure » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:19 pm

kdawg666 wrote:
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.


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...


Well crap, guess I got that little essay wrong...

BattlingBarrister
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:13 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby BattlingBarrister » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:33 pm

yes - so long as it is from the common nucleus of operative fact.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby Blindmelon » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:45 pm

kdawg666 wrote:
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.


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...


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.

zizou
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby zizou » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:26 am

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

User avatar
superserial
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby superserial » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:49 am

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


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...

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby vamedic03 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:08 pm

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.


I'm not quite sure what you're asking:

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

illegalcheeser
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:35 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby illegalcheeser » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:57 pm

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?

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:02 pm

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?


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.

User avatar
Objection
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby Objection » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:22 pm

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


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...


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.

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.


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.

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?

User avatar
superserial
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby superserial » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:36 pm

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


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...


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.



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.

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.

illegalcheeser
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:35 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby illegalcheeser » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:46 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
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?


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)?

User avatar
Objection
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby Objection » Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:17 pm

illegalcheeser wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
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?


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)?


That's correct.

User avatar
nmoor1501
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:27 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby nmoor1501 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:12 pm

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?

User avatar
nmoor1501
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:27 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby nmoor1501 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:13 pm

nmoor1501 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?


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

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby mallard » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:17 pm

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.

User avatar
superserial
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby superserial » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:21 pm

nmoor1501 wrote:
nmoor1501 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?


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


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.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:24 pm

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.


This. The court still needs jurisdiction over what's being joined in order to join it. Supplemental jurisdiction can provide that.
Last edited by vanwinkle on Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nmoor1501
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:27 pm

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby nmoor1501 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:24 pm

superserial wrote:
nmoor1501 wrote:
nmoor1501 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?


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


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?

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby mallard » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:26 pm

You are still not seeing the difference. Not only can jurisdiction not get you joinder, joinder cannot get you jurisdiction.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:27 pm

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?


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).

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.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nylon and 12 guests