Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:44 pm

The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.

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

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby ph14 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:49 pm

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.


Doesn't the rule bar jurisdiction over claims by Ps against parties joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, as well as claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under 19 and 24? I don't see 20(a) anywhere?

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:52 pm

ph14 wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.


Doesn't the rule bar jurisdiction over claims by Ps against parties joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, as well as claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under 19 and 24? I don't see 20(a) anywhere?


You're absolutely right. It doesn't make an exception for 20(a), but somehow it was singled out by the Court. It even says this in the E&E.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12711
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby LeDique » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:52 pm

Claims against Rule 20 plaintiffs are allowed.

That's why Ginsburg argues Clark and Zahn shouldn't have been overruled by Ortega/Exxon.

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:54 pm

LeDique wrote:Claims against Rule 20 plaintiffs are allowed.

That's why Ginsburg argues Clark and Zahn shouldn't have been overruled by Ortega/Exxon.



So let me get this straight. 1367b does NOT apply to 20a1 but does apply to 20a2?

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12711
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby LeDique » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:57 pm

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.


So yeah, claims by defendants against parties joined under rule 20 are permissible.

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:58 pm

LeDique wrote:
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.


So yeah, claims by defendants against parties joined under rule 20 are permissible.


Interesting. I guess I should pay better attention.

Thank you.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12711
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby LeDique » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:00 am

But your original question is a valid one - the majority and dissent both struggle with the handling of Rule 20 in §1367(b). Ginsburg makes the better effort at reconciling it than the majority, in my opinion. It's right at the end of her opinion, if I remember it right.
Last edited by LeDique on Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

portaprokoss
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:40 pm

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby portaprokoss » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:00 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.


The point of supplemental jurisdiction is to allow D's to fully defend themselves if P drags them into federal court. Allowing supplemental jurisdiction for P's claims under 20(a) does not serve that purpose.

User avatar
drmguy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:43 am

Re: Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)?

Postby drmguy » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:30 pm

Isn't it incorrect to label it as 20(a)(1) and 20(a)(2). Doesn't Exxon allow a cross claim against a defendant added under 20?

I believe you should just say that Exxon prevents claims from the orignal plaintiff against parties added under 20.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 18 guests