supplemental jurisdiction HALP

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
nixxers
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:47 am

supplemental jurisdiction HALP

Postby nixxers » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:38 pm

If you have P1 and P2 v. D1 and D2, in federal court, and it is a diversity action, assuming there is complete diversity, each P must meet the amount in controversy requirement in their claims against each D... right?

Because 1367 says that supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to claims by P against a joined defendant unless they meet all the requirements of 1332... and one of the requirements of 1332 is the AIC requirement... right?

:?

thx guyz

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

Re: supplemental jurisdiction HALP

Postby acrossthelake » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:44 pm

nixxers wrote:If you have P1 and P2 v. D1 and D2, in federal court, and it is a diversity action, assuming there is complete diversity, each P must meet the amount in controversy requirement in their claims against each D... right?

Because 1367 says that supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to claims by P against a joined defendant unless they meet all the requirements of 1332... and one of the requirements of 1332 is the AIC requirement... right?

:?

thx guyz


Yes, though I would word the reasoning to be more because if any of the plaintiff's claims fail the AIC requirement, then it has to come in under supplemental, and supplemental can't be exercised by a P against a defendant joined under rule 14, 19, 20 or 24. However, claims by the defendants against the plaintiffs probably don't need the required AIC since you don't run into a 1367b problem there.

User avatar
nixxers
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:47 am

Re: supplemental jurisdiction HALP

Postby nixxers » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:49 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
nixxers wrote:If you have P1 and P2 v. D1 and D2, in federal court, and it is a diversity action, assuming there is complete diversity, each P must meet the amount in controversy requirement in their claims against each D... right?

Because 1367 says that supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to claims by P against a joined defendant unless they meet all the requirements of 1332... and one of the requirements of 1332 is the AIC requirement... right?

:?

thx guyz


Yes, though I would word the reasoning to be more because if any of the plaintiff's claims fail the AIC requirement, then it has to come in under supplemental, and supplemental can't be exercised by a P against a defendant joined under rule 14, 19, 20 or 24. However, claims by the defendants against the plaintiffs probably don't need the required AIC since you don't run into a 1367b problem there.


awesome. THANKS! :)




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests