Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question Forum

[ph14]

(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.

Is there no jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24 only when exercising jurisdiction would be be inconsistent with §1332 (i.e., diversity requirements), or is there no supplemental jurisdiction ever in diversity actions over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24?

Same question for plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24.

[keg411]

(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.

Is there no jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24 only when exercising jurisdiction would be be inconsistent with §1332 (i.e., diversity requirements), or is there no supplemental jurisdiction ever in diversity actions over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24?

Same question for plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24.

There would also be original jx over R14, R19, R20 and R24 D's as long as they are both diverse and meet the amount in controversy, so you wouldn't use supplemental jx. Supplemental jx is only used if you can't get original jx. And you can't take supplemental jx over those parties because that would lead to P's manufacturing lawsuits.

ETA: Visuals:
1) P(NY) sues D1(PA) for $100k. D1(PA) impleads D2(NY). If P tries to sue D2, the court would not take supplemental jx, since there is no complete diversity and D2 was made a party under R14. If this were allowed, P's would be able to manufacture lawsuits.

2) P(NY) sues D1(PA) for $100k. D1(PA) impleads D2(PA). P could sue D2 since the court could take original jx since there is complete diversity.

[LeDique]

I'm a bit confused by that then. section a reads that: "in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties."

Doesn't that mean you have to use supplemental jx over anyone joinder, even if it's diverse?

[istara]

1367, according to my civ pro professor, is the worse statute ever written.

It basically goes like this:
(a) Same nucleus of operative fact (Gibbs)
(b) APPLIES TO DIVERSITY anchor claims ONLY: No jxd if: (this comes from Owen Equip. v. Kroger, btw)
The claim is made by the plaintiff against anyone made a party under 14, 19, 20 or 24 OR
The claim is made by someone made a party under 19 or 24.
(c) Some discretionary factors for getting rid of the claim if the court doesn't want it.. (also from Gibbs)

[ahduth]

I'm a bit confused by that then. section a reads that: "in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties."

Doesn't that mean you have to use supplemental jx over anyone joinder, even if it's diverse?

Yeah, if it's a Federal question, why would diversity matter? You never get to 28 USC 1332 I don't think.

[ph14]

1367, according to my civ pro professor, is the worse statute ever written.

It basically goes like this:
(a) Same nucleus of operative fact (Gibbs)
(b) APPLIES TO DIVERSITY anchor claims ONLY: No jxd if: (this comes from Owen Equip. v. Kroger, btw)
The claim is made by the plaintiff against anyone made a party under 14, 19, 20 or 24 OR
The claim is made by someone made a party under 19 or 24.
(c) Some discretionary factors for getting rid of the claim if the court doesn't want it.. (also from Gibbs)

So what, that seems to contradict what keg said; you make it seem like you can't bring the claim at all even if it would not destroy complete diversity. Is that correct?

[ph14]

So Acing Civil Procedure has this to say:

When the supplemental claims are by plaintiffs against certain joined parties (parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24) they will not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction nor will claims by plaintiffs joined under Rules 19 or 24, if jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the requirements of diversity jurisdiction.

So it makes it seem like you can't have supplemental jurisdiction ever over claims against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24. But you can have supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24 unless jurisdiction over such claims would defeat diversity.

[istara]

I'm confused, what does destroying diversity have to do with it? Let me see if I can dig up a hypo..

If the anchor claim is based on federal question, just apply 1367(a) and (c).
If the anchor claim is based in diversity, apply 1367(a)(b) and (c).

Under supplemental jurisdiction, you don't have to worry about the end result destroying complete diversity or whether the amount-in-controversy is sufficient. You just apply the rule strictly without thinking about it.

[ph14]

I'm confused, what does destroying diversity have to do with it? Let me see if I can dig up a hypo..

If the anchor claim is based on federal question, just apply 1367(a) and (c).
If the anchor claim is based in diversity, apply 1367(a)(b) and (c).

Under supplemental jurisdiction, you don't have to worry about the end result destroying complete diversity or whether the amount-in-controversy is sufficient. You just apply the rule strictly without thinking about it.

Not sure about that-- did you see my above post?

[Pierson v. Poast]

Is there no jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24 only when exercising jurisdiction would be be inconsistent with §1332 (i.e., diversity requirements), or is there no supplemental jurisdiction ever in diversity actions over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24?

There is no supplemental jurisdiction over those claims only when they would destroy diversity. If the joined party maintains diversity of citizenship, there can be supplemental jurisdiction.

[094320]

..

[094320]

..

[ph14]

Is there no jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24 only when exercising jurisdiction would be be inconsistent with §1332 (i.e., diversity requirements), or is there no supplemental jurisdiction ever in diversity actions over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24?

There is no supplemental jurisdiction over those claims only when they would destroy diversity. If the joined party maintains diversity of citizenship, there can be supplemental jurisdiction.

Did you see this post?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p4987405

If so, please give me a citation (not criticizing, just trying to get this straightened out).

[094320]

..

[ph14]

Is there no jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24 only when exercising jurisdiction would be be inconsistent with §1332 (i.e., diversity requirements), or is there no supplemental jurisdiction ever in diversity actions over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24?

There is no supplemental jurisdiction over those claims when they would destroy diversity. If the joined party maintains diversity of citizenship, there can be supplemental jurisdiction.

Incorrect. If it's by an *original* plaintiff against someone made a party under 14, 19, 20, or 24 then it cannot be brought under supplemental jurisdiction if the original claim had federal SMJ based on diversity even if it doesn't destroy diversity. Exxon also has an additional requirement that the claims cannot destroy diversity, but that's separate from the 1367b problem.

Can you elaborate on Exxon? And also on the clause about claims by plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24 in 1367(b)?

[094320]

..

[Pierson v. Poast]

Is there no jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24 only when exercising jurisdiction would be be inconsistent with §1332 (i.e., diversity requirements), or is there no supplemental jurisdiction ever in diversity actions over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24?

There is no supplemental jurisdiction over those claims when they would destroy diversity. If the joined party maintains diversity of citizenship, there can be supplemental jurisdiction.

Incorrect. If it's by an *original* plaintiff against someone made a party under 14, 19, 20, or 24 then it cannot be brought under supplemental jurisdiction if the original claim had federal SMJ based on diversity even if it doesn't destroy diversity. Exxon also has an additional requirement that the claims cannot destroy diversity, but that's separate from the 1367b problem.

No, the "when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332." part applies to all the claims listed in 1367(b).

[istara]

If someone who was joined as a required party (19) or intervened in the action (24) asserts a claim with no independent jurisdiction, there won't be any supplemental jurisdiction over it either.

[ph14]

Can you elaborate on Exxon? And also on the clause about claims by plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24 in 1367(b)?

Our prof just teaches it as original plaintiffs. He said it was okay if it was a plaintiff joined under 19 or 24 I think, but I'm not sure about that.

I don't remember the Exxon fact pattern anymore, but Exxon basically just says that if supplemental jurisdiction would destroy diversity, and the original claim was diversity (rather than federal question), then the supplemental jurisdiction fails. However, if the original question was diversity, then it's not relevant supplemental passes as long as there's CNOF (1367a) and it passes whatever discretion factors that are considered in 1367c.

Do you mean federal question for your last sentence?

So basically you can't use supplemental jurisdiction if it would destroy diversity, but that isn't really inconsistent with 1367(b) since:

the clause about SJ over claims against parties joined by 14, 19, 20, or 24 says that supplemental jurisdiction fails, regardless of diversity; and
the clause about claims by plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24 says that supplemental jurisdiction is not allowed if it destroys diversity;

Is that right?

[094320]

..

[ph14]

If someone who was joined as a required party (19) or intervened in the action (24) asserts a claim with no independent jurisdiction, there won't be any supplemental jurisdiction over it either.

Isn't that only when asserting supplemental jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the requirements of diversity? You could assert it otherwise.

[094320]

..

[ph14]

Can you elaborate on Exxon? And also on the clause about claims by plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24 in 1367(b)?

Our prof just teaches it as original plaintiffs. He said it was okay if it was a plaintiff joined under 19 or 24 I think, but I'm not sure about that.

I don't remember the Exxon fact pattern anymore, but Exxon basically just says that if supplemental jurisdiction would destroy diversity, and the original claim was diversity (rather than federal question), then the supplemental jurisdiction fails. However, if the original question was diversity, then it's not relevant supplemental passes as long as there's CNOF (1367a) and it passes whatever discretion factors that are considered in 1367c.

Do you mean federal question for your last sentence?

So basically you can't use supplemental jurisdiction if it would destroy diversity, but that isn't really inconsistent with 1367(b) since:

the clause about SJ over claims against parties joined by 14, 19, 20, or 24 says that supplemental jurisdiction fails, regardless of diversity; and
the clause about claims by plaintiffs joined under 19 or 24 says that supplemental jurisdiction is not allowed if it destroys diversity;

Is that right?

yes, I'm going to go back and edit in a sec.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but I think so. Basically there are just 4 possible problems with supplemental:
1) No CNOF.
2) destroys diversity(exxon)
3) claim by original paltinif against parties joinded blah blah blah.
4) the discretionary stuff in c.

So apart from 1367(b), you can never exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it would destroy diversity?

[094320]

..

[Pierson v. Poast]

No, the "when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332." part applies to all the claims listed in 1367(b).

I think we're talking past each other, then. I'm just saying, supplemental jurisdiction isn't fine just if the joined parties maintain diversity.

Nevermind, I think you're right. OP: if you have the E&E, I think Chapter 16 Question 8 is this situation.