Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
nimhnimh
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:18 am

Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby nimhnimh » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:26 pm

Let's say P is from NY and he is suing D from NJ in federal court for more than 75K. Now let's say that D wants to join a new party, D2 from NY, as a necessary party to P's claim. This would mean that both P and D2 are from NY. How does work with supplemental jurisdiction? Would it destroy diversity? Does the case get dismissed? Thanks!

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7234
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby beach_terror » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:32 pm

nimhnimh wrote:Let's say P is from NY and he is suing D from NJ in federal court for more than 75K. Now let's say that D wants to join a new party, D2 from NY, as a necessary party to P's claim. This would mean that both P and D2 are from NY. How does work with supplemental jurisdiction? Would it destroy diversity? Does the case get dismissed? Thanks!

You can do this here, but P cannot sue D2 because he filed in federal court, so he accepts limitations on who he can sue. D's on the other hand are not there by choice, and can bring in additional parties. It does not violate complete diversity because P is not suing D2. Basically, P is suing D1, and now D2 and D1 can duke it out between who has to pay and all P can do is watch.

1367b
a. Shall not have jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the FRCP (potential defendants – does not apply to joining plaintiffs under these rules)
b. Or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as P’s under rule 19 of such rules or seeking to intervene as P’s under rule 24 of such rules (potential plaintiffs)
Last edited by beach_terror on Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19639
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby dailygrind » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:36 pm

my bad, didn't ready it fully. takesbacks.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7234
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby beach_terror » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:38 pm

dailygrind wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
nimhnimh wrote:Let's say P is from NY and he is suing D from NJ in federal court for more than 75K. Now let's say that D wants to join a new party, D2 from NY, as a necessary party to P's claim. This would mean that both P and D2 are from NY. How does work with supplemental jurisdiction? Would it destroy diversity? Does the case get dismissed? Thanks!

You can do this here, but P cannot sue D2 because he filed in federal court, so he accepts limitations on who he can sue. D's on the other hand are not there by choice, and can bring in additional parties. It does not violate complete diversity because P is not suing D2. Basically, P is suing D1, and now D2 and D1 can duke it out between who has to pay and all P can do is watch.


whoa, whoa, hold on. I don't think P gets smj here, because he violates 1367(b), because in essence, what he's trying to do is backdoor his way into a federal case by only suing one of the important parties and hoping that party impleads another, and yes, this is a massive, massive run on sentence - i am aware of that.


P isn't joining the party, D1 is. D1 can join the party under 1367 as long as it doesn't violate the rules I threw up above, but P cannot sue the new defendant. Which upholds the policy - if P wanted to sue him he shoulda went to state court. I think.

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby vanwinkle » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:39 pm

nimhnimh wrote:Let's say P is from NY and he is suing D from NJ in federal court for more than 75K. Now let's say that D wants to join a new party, D2 from NY, as a necessary party to P's claim. This would mean that both P and D2 are from NY. How does work with supplemental jurisdiction? Would it destroy diversity? Does the case get dismissed? Thanks!

1) I'm assuming the diversity claim is the sole claim, and that D2 is being joined as an additional defendant (so that it would go from P->D1 to P->D1/D2).

2) Look at the statute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/us ... -000-.html

(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

3) Apply the statute. The parties must be joined by relevant rules (19 or 20). Rule 19 is compulsory joinder, Rule 20 is permissive joinder. The statute above said that courts can't have supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 19 or 20.

In this situation, original jurisdiction is solely based on 1332 (diversity jurisdiction), and P would end up with a claim against someone made party through Rule 19 or 20 joinder. Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction isn't allowed here. It would destroy complete diversity, and that's the logic behind the rule.

What happens next depends on the rule. Rule 20 is permissive joinder; the court should just dismiss the joined claim for lack of jurisdiction and just keep jurisdiction over the case between the original parties (P and D1). Rule 19 is compulsory joinder; if D2 is a party that arguably must be joined, then look to Rule 19 and any cases you studied in class that involved it. Rule 19 has a specific section, Rule 19(b), for what to do when compulsory parties can't be joined. It really depends on how the court applies the different factors in Rule 19(b), but there's a variety of possible outcomes, including dismissal of the case entirely or handling it by limiting ("shaping") available remedies.

I really suspect that, unless P originally intentionally omitted D2 so he could try to have diversity, you won't have a situation where joinder is compulsory. If it is compulsory, that should be obvious to P and he shouldn't be filing this in federal court at all (he should file in state court and try to name both D1 and D2 as defendants, and hope he can get personal jurisdiction over D1 in state court). The court would likely dismiss to make P go back to state court where he should have gone in the first place.

nimhnimh
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:18 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby nimhnimh » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:14 pm

Thanks for the answers. So let's say that D2 is added to the lawsuit as beach_terror explained is possible under 1367. Can he bring a counterclaim against P? Or is this disallowed because they are from the same state?

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby vanwinkle » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:47 pm

nimhnimh wrote:Thanks for the answers. So let's say that D2 is added to the lawsuit as beach_terror explained is possible under 1367. Can he bring a counterclaim against P? Or is this disallowed because they are from the same state?

Not clear what you're asking. Here's ways to approach and outcomes:

D1 adds D2 as a second defendant to P's lawsuit. This is not allowed. It would be under Rules 19 or 20 and as described above the court would not have jurisdiction. The rules are structured this way to preserve complete diversity.

D1 brings an impleader action against D2. This would be under the Rule 14 impleader rules; D1 becomes a "third-party plaintiff" (he's the original defendant, but now also a plaintiff suing a third party) and D2 becomes the "third-party defendant". D1 can only do this to D2 if D2 is "a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it"; Rule 14(a)(1). This means that if D1 knows he'll probably be found liable to P, but thinks D2 should also be liable, he can bring D2 in right away and sue him to recover part of what he's going to end up paying P.

Here's the problem with impleading: § 1367(b) says that federal courts can't have supplemental jurisdiction "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332". What does that mean? P brought his claim against D1 under § 1332, and if he were allowed to sue D2 also, then that would destroy complete diversity and the court's original § 1332 jurisdiction would disappear.

But D1 can sue D2 without affecting the court's original jurisdiction, because the original jurisdiction is § 1332 jurisdiction for the case between P and D1. That diversity is still complete, even with D1 suing D2 in a separate supplemental action.

So D1 can sue D2 under Rule 14 impleader, but even after D2 comes into the case, P cannot sue D2. If the rule were otherwise, then it would lead to the opposite of the first scenario; P would be ultimately allowed to have a suit against D1 and D2 at the same time.

D2 joins as a plaintiff suing P or D1. Well, then, he's not really a D, is he?

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby Flanker1067 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:04 pm

Just to be clear, that third party defendant can assert a claim against the first plaintiff and then the plaintiff can assert any compulsory counterclaim, correct? And in this way the original plaintiff may actually have a claim against the non diverse third party defendant?

User avatar
irie
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby irie » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:21 pm

Flanker1067 wrote:Just to be clear, that third party defendant can assert a claim against the first plaintiff and then the plaintiff can assert any compulsory counterclaim, correct? And in this way the original plaintiff may actually have a claim against the non diverse third party defendant?


the short answer is NO

courts have not given a clear response to this to date, do not assume it. it is a problem situation because the federal rules go directly against 1367

ftblryan
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:59 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby ftblryan » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:23 pm

To be specific if the original D joins the TPD under 13(a) and assert a claim against them then that claim is independent from the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant. So diversity for the reason being in federal in court is still intact. There is no claim by the plaintiff against the TPD.

To go further the district court must have jurisdiction over that claim and they can use 1367(a) on that one because the claim must arise out of the same transaction and occurrence to be a 13(a) party and 14(a) claim anyways.

irie wrote:
Flanker1067 wrote:Just to be clear, that third party defendant can assert a claim against the first plaintiff and then the plaintiff can assert any compulsory counterclaim, correct? And in this way the original plaintiff may actually have a claim against the non diverse third party defendant?


the short answer is NO

courts have not given a clear response to this to date, do not assume it. it is a problem situation because the federal rules go directly against 1367


The TPD can then file a claim against the original plaintiff under 14(a) and the court can use 1367(a) again to establish jurisdiction over that claim. However, (which is what most people miss) is that the plaintiff CAN file a claim against the TPD under 14(a)(3) however as 1367(b) states you cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over claims to parties joined under 14, 19 etc. This is because the TPD is brought in against his will and he might have claims against the plaintiff so he is just in filing them. The plaintiff could have brought in the TPD under 20(a) and asserted any claim against him under 18(a). If 1367(b) allowed for these claims it would be rewarding the plaintiff for his failure to file claims that he should have filed before, basically giving him a second chance. So the 14(a)(3) claim MUST have independent jurisdiction (1331 or 1332) and since the TPD is from the same state there must be a federal question established for his 14(a)(3) claim to be heard.

This goes into more detail than you might have wanted but the last section was on our test and a lot of people missed that yes in fact the plaintiff can file a claim against the TPD but it MUST have independent jurisdiction to be heard in fed court.
Last edited by ftblryan on Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
irie
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby irie » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:24 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
nimhnimh wrote:Thanks for the answers. So let's say that D2 is added to the lawsuit as beach_terror explained is possible under 1367. Can he bring a counterclaim against P? Or is this disallowed because they are from the same state?

Not clear what you're asking. Here's ways to approach and outcomes:

D1 adds D2 as a second defendant to P's lawsuit. This is not allowed. It would be under Rules 19 or 20 and as described above the court would not have jurisdiction. The rules are structured this way to preserve complete diversity.

D1 brings an impleader action against D2. This would be under the Rule 14 impleader rules; D1 becomes a "third-party plaintiff" (he's the original defendant, but now also a plaintiff suing a third party) and D2 becomes the "third-party defendant". D1 can only do this to D2 if D2 is "a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it"; Rule 14(a)(1). This means that if D1 knows he'll probably be found liable to P, but thinks D2 should also be liable, he can bring D2 in right away and sue him to recover part of what he's going to end up paying P.

Here's the problem with impleading: § 1367(b) says that federal courts can't have supplemental jurisdiction "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332". What does that mean? P brought his claim against D1 under § 1332, and if he were allowed to sue D2 also, then that would destroy complete diversity and the court's original § 1332 jurisdiction would disappear.

But D1 can sue D2 without affecting the court's original jurisdiction, because the original jurisdiction is § 1332 jurisdiction for the case between P and D1. That diversity is still complete, even with D1 suing D2 in a separate supplemental action.

So D1 can sue D2 under Rule 14 impleader, but even after D2 comes into the case, P cannot sue D2. If the rule were otherwise, then it would lead to the opposite of the first scenario; P would be ultimately allowed to have a suit against D1 and D2 at the same time.

D2 joins as a plaintiff suing P or D1. Well, then, he's not really a D, is he?



TITCR

User avatar
irie
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby irie » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:30 pm

ftblryan wrote:To be specific if the original D joins the TPD under 13(a) and assert a claim against them then that claim is independent from the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant. So diversity for the reason being in federal in court is still intact. There is no claim by the plaintiff against the TPD.

To go further the district court must have jurisdiction over that claim and they can use 1367(a) on that one because the claim must arise out of the same transaction and occurrence to be a 13(a) party and 14(a) claim anyways.

irie wrote:
Flanker1067 wrote:Just to be clear, that third party defendant can assert a claim against the first plaintiff and then the plaintiff can assert any compulsory counterclaim, correct? And in this way the original plaintiff may actually have a claim against the non diverse third party defendant?


the short answer is NO

courts have not given a clear response to this to date, do not assume it. it is a problem situation because the federal rules go directly against 1367


The TPD can then file a claim against the original plaintiff under 14(a) and the court can use 1367(a) again to establish jurisdiction over that claim. However, (which is what most people miss) is that the plaintiff CAN file a claim against the TPD under 14(a)(3) however as 1367(b) states you cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over claims to parties joined under 14, 19 etc. This is because the TPD is brought in against his will and he might have claims against the plaintiff so he is just in filing them. The plaintiff could have brought in the TPD under 20(a) and asserted any claim against him under 18(a). If 1367(b) allowed for these claims it would be rewarding the plaintiff for his failure to file claims that he should have filed before, basically giving him a second chance. So the 14(a)(3) claim MUST have independent jurisdiction (1331 or 1332) and since the TPD is from the same state there must be a federal question established for his 14(a)(3) claim to be heard.

This goes into more detail than you might have wanted but the last section was on our test and a lot of people missed that yes in fact the plaintiff can file a claim against the TPD but it MUST have independent jurisdiction to be heard in fed court.


If the court has independent jx over TPD as you are suggesting, 1367 wouldn't even be an issue...

Edit: sorry, meant court, not plaintiff

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby de5igual » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:33 pm

ftblryan wrote:To be specific if the original D joins the TPD under 13(a) and assert a claim against them then that claim is independent from the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant. So diversity for the reason being in federal in court is still intact. There is no claim by the plaintiff against the TPD.

To go further the district court must have jurisdiction over that claim and they can use 1367(a) on that one because the claim must arise out of the same transaction and occurrence to be a 13(a) party and 14(a) claim anyways.

irie wrote:
Flanker1067 wrote:Just to be clear, that third party defendant can assert a claim against the first plaintiff and then the plaintiff can assert any compulsory counterclaim, correct? And in this way the original plaintiff may actually have a claim against the non diverse third party defendant?


the short answer is NO

courts have not given a clear response to this to date, do not assume it. it is a problem situation because the federal rules go directly against 1367


The TPD can then file a claim against the original plaintiff under 14(a) and the court can use 1367(a) again to establish jurisdiction over that claim. However, (which is what most people miss) is that the plaintiff CAN file a claim against the TPD under 14(a)(3) however as 1367(b) states you cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over claims to parties joined under 14, 19 etc. This is because the TPD is brought in against his will and he might have claims against the plaintiff so he is just in filing them. The plaintiff could have brought in the TPD under 20(a) and asserted any claim against him under 18(a). If 1367(b) allowed for these claims it would be rewarding the plaintiff for his failure to file claims that he should have filed before, basically giving him a second chance. So the 14(a)(3) claim MUST have independent jurisdiction (1331 or 1332) and since the TPD is from the same state there must be a federal question established for his 14(a)(3) claim to be heard.

This goes into more detail than you might have wanted but the last section was on our test and a lot of people missed that yes in fact the plaintiff can file a claim against the TPD but it MUST have independent jurisdiction to be heard in fed court.


i think you're missing the point. TPD can assert a claim against the plaintiff under 1367(a) and that won't violate 1367(b). While a plaintiff can't join a claim against the TPD if it violates diversity, can he counterclaim TPD's claim against him if it were compulsive? The rules seem contradictory on that point.

ftblryan
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:59 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby ftblryan » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:42 pm

f0bolous wrote:
ftblryan wrote:To be specific if the original D joins the TPD under 13(a) and assert a claim against them then that claim is independent from the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant. So diversity for the reason being in federal in court is still intact. There is no claim by the plaintiff against the TPD.

To go further the district court must have jurisdiction over that claim and they can use 1367(a) on that one because the claim must arise out of the same transaction and occurrence to be a 13(a) party and 14(a) claim anyways.

irie wrote:
Flanker1067 wrote:Just to be clear, that third party defendant can assert a claim against the first plaintiff and then the plaintiff can assert any compulsory counterclaim, correct? And in this way the original plaintiff may actually have a claim against the non diverse third party defendant?


the short answer is NO

courts have not given a clear response to this to date, do not assume it. it is a problem situation because the federal rules go directly against 1367


The TPD can then file a claim against the original plaintiff under 14(a) and the court can use 1367(a) again to establish jurisdiction over that claim. However, (which is what most people miss) is that the plaintiff CAN file a claim against the TPD under 14(a)(3) however as 1367(b) states you cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over claims to parties joined under 14, 19 etc. This is because the TPD is brought in against his will and he might have claims against the plaintiff so he is just in filing them. The plaintiff could have brought in the TPD under 20(a) and asserted any claim against him under 18(a). If 1367(b) allowed for these claims it would be rewarding the plaintiff for his failure to file claims that he should have filed before, basically giving him a second chance. So the 14(a)(3) claim MUST have independent jurisdiction (1331 or 1332) and since the TPD is from the same state there must be a federal question established for his 14(a)(3) claim to be heard.

This goes into more detail than you might have wanted but the last section was on our test and a lot of people missed that yes in fact the plaintiff can file a claim against the TPD but it MUST have independent jurisdiction to be heard in fed court.


i think you're missing the point. TPD can assert a claim against the plaintiff under 1367(a) and that won't violate 1367(b). While a plaintiff can't join a claim against the TPD if it violates diversity, can he counterclaim TPD's claim against him if it were compulsive? The rules seem contradictory on that point.


When I was reading Glannon he specifically states that P cannot assert the compulsory counter claim against TPD. If he had a claim to begin with, which would be the assumption because if he has a compulsory counter claim then he could have brought that claim originally, then he should have joined the TPD in the first place under 20(a). Glannon goes into the fairness principle and how the TPD was brought in against his will so he can assert new claims while P should have filed all claims relating to the suit originally. I guess its one of those rules that don't really make sense and seem unfair. I was just throwing in 1367(b) to show how it can't apply to 14(a)(3) claims if the party is joined under 14(a).

User avatar
irie
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby irie » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:43 pm

f0bolous wrote:
ftblryan wrote:To be specific if the original D joins the TPD under 13(a) and assert a claim against them then that claim is independent from the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant. So diversity for the reason being in federal in court is still intact. There is no claim by the plaintiff against the TPD.

To go further the district court must have jurisdiction over that claim and they can use 1367(a) on that one because the claim must arise out of the same transaction and occurrence to be a 13(a) party and 14(a) claim anyways.

irie wrote:
Flanker1067 wrote:Just to be clear, that third party defendant can assert a claim against the first plaintiff and then the plaintiff can assert any compulsory counterclaim, correct? And in this way the original plaintiff may actually have a claim against the non diverse third party defendant?


the short answer is NO

courts have not given a clear response to this to date, do not assume it. it is a problem situation because the federal rules go directly against 1367


The TPD can then file a claim against the original plaintiff under 14(a) and the court can use 1367(a) again to establish jurisdiction over that claim. However, (which is what most people miss) is that the plaintiff CAN file a claim against the TPD under 14(a)(3) however as 1367(b) states you cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over claims to parties joined under 14, 19 etc. This is because the TPD is brought in against his will and he might have claims against the plaintiff so he is just in filing them. The plaintiff could have brought in the TPD under 20(a) and asserted any claim against him under 18(a). If 1367(b) allowed for these claims it would be rewarding the plaintiff for his failure to file claims that he should have filed before, basically giving him a second chance. So the 14(a)(3) claim MUST have independent jurisdiction (1331 or 1332) and since the TPD is from the same state there must be a federal question established for his 14(a)(3) claim to be heard.

This goes into more detail than you might have wanted but the last section was on our test and a lot of people missed that yes in fact the plaintiff can file a claim against the TPD but it MUST have independent jurisdiction to be heard in fed court.


i think you're missing the point. TPD can assert a claim against the plaintiff under 1367(a) and that won't violate 1367(b). While a plaintiff can't join a claim against the TPD if it violates diversity, can he counterclaim TPD's claim against him if it were compulsive? The rules seem contradictory on that point.


I'm almost 100% sure the courts have not given a final ruling on this, but it is essentially a Federal Rule vs. Federal Statute, and I think in that case courts would err on the side of not permitting it, but I have no grounds whatsoever for that. On an exam if this comes up you'd be safe to say it is simply undecided.

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby vanwinkle » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:45 pm

As far as I know, P cannot make any claims, even compulsory ones, against TPD because it would otherwise destroy complete diversity and the court's original jurisdiction. If you read the language of § 1367(b) it supports this; plaintiff can't sue any parties added under Rule 14 if doing so would affect § 1332 diversity jurisdiction. I believe lower courts have been construing it this way, but the USSC has never made a definitive ruling on it.

User avatar
irie
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby irie » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:47 pm

ftblryan wrote:
When I was reading Glannon he specifically states that P cannot assert the compulsory counter claim against TPD. If he had a claim to begin with, which would be the assumption because if he has a compulsory counter claim then he could have brought that claim originally, then he should have joined the TPD in the first place under 20(a). Glannon goes into the fairness principle and how the TPD was brought in against his will so he can assert new claims while P should have filed all claims relating to the suit originally. I guess its one of those rules that don't really make sense and seem unfair. I was just throwing in 1367(b) to show how it can't apply to 14(a)(3) claims if the party is joined under 14(a).


I understand your point now. That seems as good an explanation as can be made for the contradiction.

ftblryan
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:59 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby ftblryan » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:57 pm

irie wrote:
ftblryan wrote:
When I was reading Glannon he specifically states that P cannot assert the compulsory counter claim against TPD. If he had a claim to begin with, which would be the assumption because if he has a compulsory counter claim then he could have brought that claim originally, then he should have joined the TPD in the first place under 20(a). Glannon goes into the fairness principle and how the TPD was brought in against his will so he can assert new claims while P should have filed all claims relating to the suit originally. I guess its one of those rules that don't really make sense and seem unfair. I was just throwing in 1367(b) to show how it can't apply to 14(a)(3) claims if the party is joined under 14(a).


I understand your point now. That seems as good an explanation as can be made for the contradiction.


Yea, I thought this was just going to be a quirk example of how the FRCP can be really confusing but there is no way my professor would talk about it let alone ask about it and POW it was 2 out of 11 questions on our test. I'm glad I read it because this seems like it could be a sneaky question that could end up on a lot of exams.

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby de5igual » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:01 pm

ftblryan wrote:When I was reading Glannon he specifically states that P cannot assert the compulsory counter claim against TPD. If he had a claim to begin with, which would be the assumption because if he has a compulsory counter claim then he could have brought that claim originally, then he should have joined the TPD in the first place under 20(a). Glannon goes into the fairness principle and how the TPD was brought in against his will so he can assert new claims while P should have filed all claims relating to the suit originally. I guess its one of those rules that don't really make sense and seem unfair. I was just throwing in 1367(b) to show how it can't apply to 14(a)(3) claims if the party is joined under 14(a).


that makes sense...i just hate how grey this whole area is

my exam's all multiple choice, and questions are based on actual cases and actual outcomes, so if a judge decides to go one way (despite any reasoning to the contrary), that'll be the answer.

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby vanwinkle » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:05 pm

ftblryan wrote:When I was reading Glannon he specifically states that P cannot assert the compulsory counter claim against TPD. If he had a claim to begin with, which would be the assumption because if he has a compulsory counter claim then he could have brought that claim originally, then he should have joined the TPD in the first place under 20(a). Glannon goes into the fairness principle and how the TPD was brought in against his will so he can assert new claims while P should have filed all claims relating to the suit originally. I guess its one of those rules that don't really make sense and seem unfair. I was just throwing in 1367(b) to show how it can't apply to 14(a)(3) claims if the party is joined under 14(a).

It seems more fair in a broader perspective; if P is aware of and wants the chance to sue TPD, and knows TPD is in-state, then P should sue in state court instead of federal court. In most cases, P will already be aware of the existence of TPD and be anticipating their arrival into the case, so they get the choice of suing in federal court (where they can't sue the in-state TPD) or in state court (where they don't get a federal judge, but they get the chance to sue the in-state TPD when they come in). A system set up otherwise would allow P to do an end-run around diversity jurisdiction just by leaving out a defendant initially, like this:

P thinks D1 and D2 are going to sue him, and wants to be in federal court.
P decides to sue first in federal court to avoid being sued in state court.
P sues D1 only, knowing D1 won't want to shoulder full liability himself.
D1 counterclaims against P, saying P is the liable party, as expected.
P waits for D1 to implead D2. D1 does implead D2.
D2 counterclaims against P, saying P is the liable party, as expected.
P counterclaims against D2, and has his claims against both parties.
P is now in federal court, suing D1 and D2, without complete diversity!

If this system were allowed, P would do this every time this situation came up. There's greater fairness issues than the occasional truly innocent plaintiff harmed by this, there's the larger unfairness of giving people a way to end-run a statutory jurisdiction requirement through manipulative behavior if you go the other way.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction, 1367, and Rule 19 and 20 Joinder

Postby Flanker1067 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:18 pm

Great answers. The problem Vanwinkle pointed out is why I asked. It's good I'm not in class with any of you (I think).

Edit: on your point above about fairness, I don't think it would be unfair to the truly innocent plaintiff because he could have the claim dismissed once he realizes this is issue is presenting a problem (assuming this will be allowed for the truly innocent), and bring the claim in the appropriate place.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 7 guests