Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

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

Postby vanwinkle » Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:33 pm

For exam advice, the best strategy is "say what your prof said". If he disagrees with Spencer, then explain why the prof is right. If he agrees with Spencer, then use Spencer's analysis. That's how you do well.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:48 pm

Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:

P (X state) v. D (Y state)

P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?

I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:00 pm

ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:

P (X state) v. D (Y state)

P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?

I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.


1367b lists it as something you can't do. "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:01 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:

P (X state) v. D (Y state)

P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?

I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.


1367b lists it as something you can't do. "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."


I thought we established above that was only when it was inconsistent with diversity.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

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

Postby Hannibal » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:03 pm

ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:

P (X state) v. D (Y state)

P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?

I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.


A plaintiff joined under Rule 24 can't bring anything against anyone. It's an explicit exemption. I doubt the intervention would have been allowed.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:04 pm

Hannibal wrote:
ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:

P (X state) v. D (Y state)

P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?

I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.


A plaintiff joined under Rule 24 can't bring anything against anyone. It's an explicit exemption. I doubt the intervention would have been allowed.


What?

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

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

Postby Hannibal » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:05 pm

Err nevermind, thought it was something else. Actually, I think this would be fine. I can see where the controversy is though.

Edit: Assuming amount in controversy is fine for the intervenor.

Edit 2: NVM, no idea what I'm talkin about.
Last edited by Hannibal on Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:07 pm

ph14 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:

P (X state) v. D (Y state)

P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?

I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.


1367b lists it as something you can't do. "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."


I thought we established above that was only when it was inconsistent with diversity.


No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:09 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:

P (X state) v. D (Y state)

P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?

I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.


1367b lists it as something you can't do. "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."


I thought we established above that was only when it was inconsistent with diversity.


No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.


In this hypo, I forgot to say but I intended the original claim to be founded on diversity under 1332.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:12 pm

ph14 wrote:
No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.


In this hypo, I forgot to say but I intended the original claim to be founded on diversity under 1332.[/quote]

Yes. So you have no diversity problem a la contagion theory, but you have a 1367 problem, so it will fail. If it was the P2 against P1 then I think it would be okay, but P1 against P2 is not okay since P1 is an original plaintiff.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:14 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.


In this hypo, I forgot to say but I intended the original claim to be founded on diversity under 1332.


Yes. So you have no diversity problem a la contagion theory, but you have a 1367 problem, so it will fail. If it was the P2 against P1 then I think it would be okay, but P1 against P2 is not okay since P1 is an original plaintiff.[/quote]

Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

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

Postby Hannibal » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:17 pm

ph14 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.


In this hypo, I forgot to say but I intended the original claim to be founded on diversity under 1332.


Yes. So you have no diversity problem a la contagion theory, but you have a 1367 problem, so it will fail. If it was the P2 against P1 then I think it would be okay, but P1 against P2 is not okay since P1 is an original plaintiff.


Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.[/quote]

I agree with this...the court would have jurisdiction over a claim against a defensive rule 24 intervenor if the parties were still fully diverse and the amount in controversy was fine. I guess the confusion here is that we shouldn't be in 1367 at all if the amount in controversy is satisfied, since it would be covered under 1332.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:20 pm

Hannibal wrote:I agree with this...the court would have jurisdiction over a claim against a defensive rule 24 intervenor if the parties were still fully diverse and the amount in controversy was fine. I guess the confusion here is that we shouldn't be in 1367 at all if the amount in controversy is satisfied, since it would be covered under 1332.


My hypo was (cross-claim): P (X state) v. P2 (X state [same state])

cross-claim arises out of the same transaction and occurrence and nondiverse parties. 1367(b) problem? if so, why?

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:20 pm

ph14 wrote:
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.


You mean, why was 1367b written with the rules as it is? I don't have a good defense for it, off the top of my head.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:24 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.


You mean, why was 1367b written with the rules as it is? I don't have a good defense for it, off the top of my head.


No. How is it forbidden under 1367(b)?

So basically my new understanding of 1367(b) is that it applies in a Kroger situation:

P (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + impleaded D2 (Iowa)

So P can't have supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against D2 because it would be inconsistent with diversity.

But also, 1367(b) apparently applies when:

P1 (Iowa) + rule 24 intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)

And P1 files a cross-claim against P2.

Is that correct?

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

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

Postby AreJay711 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:28 pm

Pro-tip: All civ pro questions can be answered by referencing Rule 1

(Note: I did not earn an A in civ pro)

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:28 pm

ph14 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.


You mean, why was 1367b written with the rules as it is? I don't have a good defense for it, off the top of my head.


No. How is it forbidden under 1367(b)?

So basically my new understanding of 1367(b) is that it applies in a Kroger situation:

P (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + impleaded D2 (Iowa)

So P can't have supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against D2 because it would be inconsistent with diversity.

But also, 1367(b) apparently applies when:

P1 (Iowa) + rule 24 intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)

And P1 files a cross-claim against P2.

Is that correct?


Yes.
For cases where the jurisdictionally sufficient claim is based ONLY on Diversity:
(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,....


Any claim by an original plaintiff against someone joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 is barred by 1367b if it's trying to come in under supplemental.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Further, would that mean that:

P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)

P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:29 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.


You mean, why was 1367b written with the rules as it is? I don't have a good defense for it, off the top of my head.


No. How is it forbidden under 1367(b)?

So basically my new understanding of 1367(b) is that it applies in a Kroger situation:

P (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + impleaded D2 (Iowa)

So P can't have supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against D2 because it would be inconsistent with diversity.

But also, 1367(b) apparently applies when:

P1 (Iowa) + rule 24 intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)

And P1 files a cross-claim against P2.

Is that correct?


Yes.
For cases where the jurisdictionally sufficient claim is based ONLY on Diversity:
(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,....


Any claim by an original plaintiff against someone joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 is barred by 1367b if it's trying to come in under supplemental.


So then the Acing book was correct.

Something like P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)

P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2 would not be allowed. But you're saying it would not be allowed.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

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

Postby Hannibal » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:30 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
For cases where the jurisdictionally sufficient claim is based ONLY on Diversity:
(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,....


Any claim by an original plaintiff against someone joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 is barred by 1367b if it's trying to come in under supplemental.


The rest of the text says it's only disallowed if it's inconsistent with §1332 Diversity. Which I don't think it is.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:30 pm

Hannibal wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
For cases where the jurisdictionally sufficient claim is based ONLY on Diversity:
(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,....


Any claim by an original plaintiff against someone joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 is barred by 1367b if it's trying to come in under supplemental.


The rest of the text says if it's inconsistent with §1332 Diversity. Which I don't think it is.


So you are saying it is okay?

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:31 pm

ph14 wrote:Further, would that mean that:

P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)

P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?


Yes.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

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

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:31 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:Further, would that mean that:

P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)

P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?


Yes.


So the acing book is correct.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:33 pm

ph14 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:Further, would that mean that:

P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)

P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?


Yes.


So the acing book is correct.


I don't know what it says, but if that's consistent with what I said, sure.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

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

Postby Hannibal » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:34 pm

ph14 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:Further, would that mean that:

P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)

P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?


Yes.


So the acing book is correct.


So does this mean the qualification of "when inconsistent with diversity requirements" only applied to claims by rule 19 and 24 plaintiffs?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests