Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby delusional » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:54 am

Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:43 am

delusional wrote:Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?


Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby delusional » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:03 am

ph14 wrote:
delusional wrote:Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?


Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:10 am

delusional wrote:
ph14 wrote:
delusional wrote:Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?


Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.


If you figure out the rest of 1367(b) let me know, i'm still confused by it but I know that much is correct at least.

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby delusional » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:08 pm

ph14 wrote:
delusional wrote:
ph14 wrote:
delusional wrote:Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?


Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.


If you figure out the rest of 1367(b) let me know, i'm still confused by it but I know that much is correct at least.

What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:11 pm

delusional wrote:
ph14 wrote:
delusional wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.


If you figure out the rest of 1367(b) let me know, i'm still confused by it but I know that much is correct at least.

What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.


What about a cross claim against plaintiffs when one of the plaintiffs is a rule 24 intervenor and they are both from the same state, but still both are completely diverse from the defendant.

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby delusional » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:26 pm

ph14 wrote:
delusional wrote:What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.


What about a cross claim against plaintiffs when one of the plaintiffs is a rule 24 intervenor and they are both from the same state, but still both are completely diverse from the defendant.

It doesn't include Rule 13 in the exceptions. Why should the fact that the plaintiff got there via rule 24 make a difference?

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

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction Question

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:28 pm

delusional wrote:
ph14 wrote:
delusional wrote:What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.


What about a cross claim against plaintiffs when one of the plaintiffs is a rule 24 intervenor and they are both from the same state, but still both are completely diverse from the defendant.

It doesn't include Rule 13 in the exceptions. Why should the fact that the plaintiff got there via rule 24 make a difference?


Includes claims by P's "proposed" to be joined under R24 though.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], LandMermaid and 10 guests