nmoor1501 wrote: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?
Supplementary jurisdiction is when what you are trying to join doesn't belong in federal court independently. You need at least one claim that can get you into federal court, then you look to 1367 to see if something without jurisdiction can be joined to that. There can also be joinder when everything has independent federal jurisdiction, and then you only have to look to the joinder rules without 1367, but you would still need regular jurisdiction no matter what.