Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ph14 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:57 pm

Pierson v. Poast wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
Pierson v. Poast wrote: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.


Ah great find. Thanks so much.

Just for anyone reading this, the problem basically was

A (NY) v. B (OH)
B impleads (R. 14) C (OH)
A files a claim against C

E&E says no supplemental jurisdiction over A's claim against C, since 1367(b) doesn't allow it-- even though it doesn't destroy diversity. However, the E&E adds that there may be an independent basis of SMJ; the parties are diverse, so if it meets the amount in controversy requirement, the court can hear it on diversity grounds.

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby keg411 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:14 am

ph14 wrote:
Pierson v. Poast wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
Pierson v. Poast wrote: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.


Ah great find. Thanks so much.

Just for anyone reading this, the problem basically was

A (NY) v. B (OH)
B impleads (R. 14) C (OH)
A files a claim against C

E&E says no supplemental jurisdiction over A's claim against C, since 1367(b) doesn't allow it-- even though it doesn't destroy diversity. However, the E&E adds that there may be an independent basis of SMJ; the parties are diverse, so if it meets the amount in controversy requirement, the court can hear it on diversity grounds.


That's what I said :|.

User avatar
SilverE2
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby SilverE2 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:25 am

ph14 wrote:
Pierson v. Poast wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
Pierson v. Poast wrote: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.


Ah great find. Thanks so much.

Just for anyone reading this, the problem basically was

A (NY) v. B (OH)
B impleads (R. 14) C (OH)
A files a claim against C

E&E says no supplemental jurisdiction over A's claim against C, since 1367(b) doesn't allow it-- even though it doesn't destroy diversity. However, the E&E adds that there may be an independent basis of SMJ; the parties are diverse, so if it meets the amount in controversy requirement, the court can hear it on diversity grounds.


Wait...so is Acing wrong? Doesn't it say that supplemental jurisdiction over a Rule 14 claim would be allowed as long as it doesn't destroy diversity?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ph14 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:25 am

SilverE2 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Pierson v. Poast wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
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.


Ah great find. Thanks so much.

Just for anyone reading this, the problem basically was

A (NY) v. B (OH)
B impleads (R. 14) C (OH)
A files a claim against C

E&E says no supplemental jurisdiction over A's claim against C, since 1367(b) doesn't allow it-- even though it doesn't destroy diversity. However, the E&E adds that there may be an independent basis of SMJ; the parties are diverse, so if it meets the amount in controversy requirement, the court can hear it on diversity grounds.


Wait...so is Acing wrong? Doesn't it say that supplemental jurisdiction over a Rule 14 claim would be allowed as long as it doesn't destroy diversity?


No.

Pierson v. Poast
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby Pierson v. Poast » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:26 am

SilverE2 wrote:
Wait...so is Acing wrong? Doesn't it say that supplemental jurisdiction over a Rule 14 claim would be allowed as long as it doesn't destroy diversity?

I don't have Acing...maybe it counts "not meeting the amount in controversy" as "destroying diversity"? If the $75k is met, the claim is allowed (supplemental jurisdiction isn't needed.)

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ph14 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:27 am


jarofsoup
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby jarofsoup » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:29 am

P cannot join supplemental parties under those rules of joinder while sitting in diversity and if joined by the D the P cannot bring claims against them.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ahduth » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:35 am

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
So apart from 1367(b), you can never exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it would destroy diversity?


That's what Exxon said, yes.


That's not Exxon, that's Strawbridge. Exxon is CAFA, and is sort of a weird exception that allows for minimal diversity - you're polluting the original problem by citing it here (get it? polluting?).

Anyhow, you can never, ever destroy complete diversity. Hell in Owens the river shifted and the court tossed the case. In certain instances you can have minimal diversity - interpleading (28 USC 1335), mass tort disaster litigation (28 USC 1369), and CAFA. I think that's it?

Also, the discretionary stuff in (c) is exactly that - discretionary. It doesn't force a district court to do shit.

I should stop reading what other people write about 1367 - I think you're purposefully trying to confuse me.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby acrossthelake » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:04 am

ahduth wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
So apart from 1367(b), you can never exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it would destroy diversity?


That's what Exxon said, yes.


That's not Exxon, that's Strawbridge. Exxon is CAFA, and is sort of a weird exception that allows for minimal diversity - you're polluting the original problem by citing it here (get it? polluting?).

Anyhow, you can never, ever destroy complete diversity. Hell in Owens the river shifted and the court tossed the case. In certain instances you can have minimal diversity - interpleading (28 USC 1335), mass tort disaster litigation (28 USC 1369), and CAFA. I think that's it?

Also, the discretionary stuff in (c) is exactly that - discretionary. It doesn't force a district court to do shit.

I should stop reading what other people write about 1367 - I think you're purposefully trying to confuse me.


Ah yeah, you're right. We were taught Exxon & Strawbridge as a sort of package.

User avatar
istara
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby istara » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:15 pm

I'm going to throw out some hypos.. some of which may conflict with the way you guys seem to have been taught (My prof has explicitly said that diversity can be destroyed under supplemental jurisdiction, ala Finley). But just to add to the confusion (these are adapted from my professor, using the answers he supplied):

A(CA); B(NV); C(OR); D(CA); E(NV); For simplicity: all claims arise out of the same transaction/occurrence. All original claims are based in diversity.

A sues B for 100k; B impleads D for 100% of the liability; There is original jurisdiction over the second claim.

A sues B for 100k; A joins D under rule 20; There is no supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(b): since it is by the plaintiff against someone joined under rule 20.

A sues B for 100k; B impleads E as a joint tortfeasor; There is supplemental jurisdiction. It is the same transaction or occurrence and 1367(b) does not apply since it is not a claim by a plaintiff nor by someone joined under rules 19 or 24. (NOTE: no complete diversity, so your professor may vary on this one, but this is the answer mine gave).

A sues B for 100k; A joins C for 10k; There is no supplemental jurisdiction since it is a claim made by the plaintiff against someone made a party under rule 20.

A sues B for 100k; A joins C for 100k (original jurisdiction); C crossclaims against B for 10k; There is supplemental jurisdiction since it is not a claim made by a plaintiff or by anyone made a party under 19 or 14 (and the amount-in-controversy does not have to be met).

Please correct any errors, I really don't want to mislead anyone..

342848386278
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:59 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby 342848386278 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:44 pm

As I understand it, 1367b just codifies Kroger : the fear is that if P has a claim against an in-state D that he'd rather sue in federal court, P could bring claim against an out of state D on the assumption that D would bring in that 3rd party in-state D against which P has a claim. 1367b thus prevents P from backdooring a claim against an in-state D.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby acrossthelake » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:38 pm

342848386278 wrote:As I understand it, 1367b just codifies Kroger : the fear is that if P has a claim against an in-state D that he'd rather sue in federal court, P could bring claim against an out of state D on the assumption that D would bring in that 3rd party in-state D against which P has a claim. 1367b thus prevents P from backdooring a claim against an in-state D.


I was taught the same thing.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ahduth » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:30 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
342848386278 wrote:As I understand it, 1367b just codifies Kroger : the fear is that if P has a claim against an in-state D that he'd rather sue in federal court, P could bring claim against an out of state D on the assumption that D would bring in that 3rd party in-state D against which P has a claim. 1367b thus prevents P from backdooring a claim against an in-state D.


I was taught the same thing.


I want to say Souter said that 1367 was actually promulgated as a response to Finley (where she tried to join like, a flash mob she was part of or something), but that piece of my casebook is in my locker. The situation you're describing is more generally handled by 1332(a)(1) / Strawbridge, which says you must always have complete diversity no matter what. 1367(b) would be unnecessary without 1332.

God, now I'm just being anal.

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:35 pm

fucking civ pro

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ph14 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:39 pm

So talked to my prof in office hours today and he confirmed that it codifies Kroger and should apply only when it would be inconsistent with diversity. So I think that goes against the Acing book. Good luck figuring it out everyone...maybe best to ask your professor.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby acrossthelake » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:34 am

ahduth wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
342848386278 wrote:As I understand it, 1367b just codifies Kroger : the fear is that if P has a claim against an in-state D that he'd rather sue in federal court, P could bring claim against an out of state D on the assumption that D would bring in that 3rd party in-state D against which P has a claim. 1367b thus prevents P from backdooring a claim against an in-state D.


I was taught the same thing.


I want to say Souter said that 1367 was actually promulgated as a response to Finley (where she tried to join like, a flash mob she was part of or something), but that piece of my casebook is in my locker. The situation you're describing is more generally handled by 1332(a)(1) / Strawbridge, which says you must always have complete diversity no matter what. 1367(b) would be unnecessary without 1332.

God, now I'm just being anal.


My exams just require that I do analysis w/out the need to cite all that much, so I don't really have any of that sort of information in mind atm.

NonTradHealthLaw
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby NonTradHealthLaw » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:59 pm

My prof confirmed that the Acing interpretation is incorrect regarding 1367b. There is also an inconsistency in Acing's Erie analysis regarding Hanna I and Hanna II. These have apparently been corrected in some of the 3rd editions.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ph14 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:03 pm

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:My prof confirmed that the Acing interpretation is incorrect regarding 1367b. There is also an inconsistency in Acing's Erie analysis regarding Hanna I and Hanna II. These have apparently been corrected in some of the 3rd editions.


Blah, thanks a lot. I didn't even realize there was a 3rd edition. How could a civ pro professor mess up such a basic thing?

NonTradHealthLaw
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby NonTradHealthLaw » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:05 pm

ph14 wrote:
NonTradHealthLaw wrote:My prof confirmed that the Acing interpretation is incorrect regarding 1367b. There is also an inconsistency in Acing's Erie analysis regarding Hanna I and Hanna II. These have apparently been corrected in some of the 3rd editions.


Blah, thanks a lot. I didn't even realize there was a 3rd edition. How could a civ pro professor mess up such a basic thing?


Seriously. I didn't read the 1367b issue as problematic until the night before my final. Just went based on what was taught in class and got clarification afterwards. Prof rolled his eyes at Spencer - apparently this isn't uncommon???

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ph14 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:07 pm

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:
ph14 wrote:
NonTradHealthLaw wrote:My prof confirmed that the Acing interpretation is incorrect regarding 1367b. There is also an inconsistency in Acing's Erie analysis regarding Hanna I and Hanna II. These have apparently been corrected in some of the 3rd editions.


Blah, thanks a lot. I didn't even realize there was a 3rd edition. How could a civ pro professor mess up such a basic thing?


Seriously. I didn't read the 1367b issue as problematic until the night before my final. Just went based on what was taught in class and got clarification afterwards. Prof rolled his eyes at Spencer - apparently this isn't uncommon???


In books generally or with that professor specifically?

NonTradHealthLaw
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby NonTradHealthLaw » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:14 pm

With Spencer - has some issues in his textbook too. Not sure why he selected the casebook. Hate it.

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby nygrrrl » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:13 am

acrossthelake wrote:
342848386278 wrote:As I understand it, 1367b just codifies Kroger : the fear is that if P has a claim against an in-state D that he'd rather sue in federal court, P could bring claim against an out of state D on the assumption that D would bring in that 3rd party in-state D against which P has a claim. 1367b thus prevents P from backdooring a claim against an in-state D.


I was taught the same thing.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ahduth » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:53 am

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:With Spencer - has some issues in his textbook too. Not sure why he selected the casebook. Hate it.


What the hell is Spencer? For that matter, what the hell is this Acing thing. I'm way too scared to touch anything other than the casebook - my outline is basically a condensed version of it.

Our class is actually going to cover joinder next week, so I'll fight with more fire and fireworks after that? Unitl then, 1332 always always always governs diversity, unless you squeak in on a federal question. I just wouldn't worry about these questions of people potentially fraudulently acquiring supplemental jurisdiction. It should be apparent to the judges, I'd think.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby ph14 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:02 am

ahduth wrote:
NonTradHealthLaw wrote:With Spencer - has some issues in his textbook too. Not sure why he selected the casebook. Hate it.


What the hell is Spencer? For that matter, what the hell is this Acing thing. I'm way too scared to touch anything other than the casebook - my outline is basically a condensed version of it.

Our class is actually going to cover joinder next week, so I'll fight with more fire and fireworks after that? Unitl then, 1332 always always always governs diversity, unless you squeak in on a federal question. I just wouldn't worry about these questions of people potentially fraudulently acquiring supplemental jurisdiction. It should be apparent to the judges, I'd think.


Spencer = author of Acing. Acting = Acing Civil Procedure, an overall pretty solid book for reviewing right before finals + improving my outline.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

Postby sundance95 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:27 pm

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:Seriously. I didn't read the 1367b issue as problematic until the night before my final. Just went based on what was taught in class and got clarification afterwards. Prof rolled his eyes at Spencer - apparently this isn't uncommon???

I dunno about this-I have Spencer for CivPro and he's an unmitigated badass, by far my favorite prof. I know that some profs don't like his reading of 1367(b)-for example, Spencer thinks that Exxon made clear that the failure to include Rule 20 plaintiffs in the language of 1367(b) means that Rule 20 plaintiffs can get supplemental jurisdiction over claims against Rule 14 third party defendants, even if they aren't diverse. {i.e., NY & NY v. DE v. NY; either P should be able to bring a supplemental claim against the third party even though they aren't diverse, and the supplemental claim is piggybacking on a diverse claim}

Other CivPro profs think this is abominable because it seems to defeat the diversity requirement. He's mentioned this in class-evidently, this is what civpro profs get lathered up over.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cavalier1138, Google Adsense [Bot], j431e782, merfcla, slizerd and 8 guests