1367(b) question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
onthecusp
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:08 pm

1367(b) question

Postby onthecusp » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:34 pm

What happens to a case that has a claim thrown out under 1367(b)? Is the entire case dismissed or is the claim simply taken out of the case?

User avatar
GeePee
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: 1367(b) question

Postby GeePee » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:38 pm

You just can't join the claim. Nothing more.

littlepiggie818
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: 1367(b) question

Postby littlepiggie818 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:39 pm

Supplemental jurisdiction would not apply to the state-law claim and the other claim that satisfied federal jurisdiction would still be adjudicated in the federal court. Otherwise, the person can just transfer both claims to state court and litigate in state court instead.

User avatar
GeePee
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: 1367(b) question

Postby GeePee » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:42 pm

littlepiggie818 wrote:Supplemental jurisdiction would not apply to the state-law claim and the other claim that satisfied federal jurisdiction would still be adjudicated in the federal court. Otherwise, the person can just transfer both claims to state court and litigate in state court instead.

I'd watch the way you use transfer. Other than removal/remand, claims never traverse from federal to state court. The plaintiff could ask the judge to dismiss the case and refile in state court, though.

littlepiggie818
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: 1367(b) question

Postby littlepiggie818 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:46 pm

GeePee wrote:
littlepiggie818 wrote:Supplemental jurisdiction would not apply to the state-law claim and the other claim that satisfied federal jurisdiction would still be adjudicated in the federal court. Otherwise, the person can just transfer both claims to state court and litigate in state court instead.

I'd watch the way you use transfer. Other than removal/remand, claims never traverse from federal to state court. The plaintiff could ask the judge to dismiss the case and refile in state court, though.


I guess I should watch the way I used my words. But you're definitely right that the P could ask the judge to dismiss the case and refile.

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

Re: 1367(b) question

Postby vanwinkle » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:46 pm

If it's a permissive claim, the court should just deny jurisdiction over the claim. The court still retains jurisdiction over the valid claims before it, and will just hear only those claims.

If it's a compulsory claim, then it should consider the factors involved and decide whether or not it should dismiss entirely. See Rule 19(b) for example; it talks about what to do if a party required to join cannot do so, and suggests possible solutions (shaping remedies to protect the interest of the unjoinable claim, dismissing entirely, etc).




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests