Supplemental 1367(b)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
redvelvetccake
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:39 pm

Supplemental 1367(b)

Postby redvelvetccake » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:31 pm

Alright, so before walking into my final tomorrow, I want to make sure I understand 1367(b) correctly.

If a case is before the federal court based solely on diversity, a plaintiff cannot bring a claim that does not meet the diversity requirements against a defendant joined under 14, 19, 20 and 24.

If I am correct on that, does that mean that if the claim DOES meet diversity requirements, then supplemental jurisdiction will be allowed?

Also, if the amount in the claim against the joined defendant is less than 75K, will this negate diversity if the other defendants all meet the 75K? (Exxon?).

I know this was answered elsewhere, but I've probably gone without sleep for too long because I couldn't decipher what language those responses were in.

Any response helps, thank you!

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Supplemental 1367(b)

Postby keg411 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:40 pm

Exxon says amount in controversy only matters for the anchor claim. Also I'm pretty sure P's can make claims against parties joined under 14, 19, 20 and 24 as long as there is complete diversity.

TigerBeer
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Supplemental 1367(b)

Postby TigerBeer » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:07 pm

one easy way to understand 1367b is that its purpose is to close a potential loophole to get around the complete diversity requirement of Strawbridge. so rather than try to parse the language of 1367b to figure out if it's allowable to join party X, just pretend party X was joined, and if doing so destroys complete diversity then you just violated 1367b.

User avatar
SeymourShowz
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Supplemental 1367(b)

Postby SeymourShowz » Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:19 pm

redvelvetccake wrote:If I am correct on that, does that mean that if the claim DOES meet diversity requirements, then supplemental jurisdiction will be allowed?
!


If the claim meets the diversity requirements then you don't need section 1367. The claim is already one that has an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (diversity), so no need for supplemental jurisdiction.

User avatar
redvelvetccake
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: Supplemental 1367(b)

Postby redvelvetccake » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:02 pm

Thanks guys! Supplemental turned out to be the first question on the essay section of my exam.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Supplemental 1367(b)

Postby gwuorbust » Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:11 am

also, remember that with supplemental J, under Exxon if any one of the joined 1332 state law claims is found to be non diverse, the contamination theory comes into play and the entire case would be dismissed for lack of SMJ. However, the same does not apply to 1331 joined claims; if a non diverse 1331 claim is joined it does not effect anything and the case is not dismissed.

edit for: seems like I'm too late to help OP, but someone might find this useful none-the-less.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gadzooks, hollamcholla1, j431e782 and 20 guests