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.