Civ Pro Hypo Forum

[ElectricDreamMachine]

A (NY) sues B (PA). B impleads C (PA) under rule 14. A amends complaint, adding C. Assume AIC requirement is satisfied.

I know that 1367(b) would not allow A to file a claim against C if they were from the same state. But in this case, impleading C doesn't destroy complete diversity. So when A amends the complaint, is the basis for SMJ over C diversity or supplemental?

Thanks in advance!

[kristinmarieUA]

It is my understanding that, according to Richard Freer, you NEVER use supplemental jurisdiction unless you absolutely cannot get federal question or diversity. Why am I answering this after an exam?

[The Gentleman]

EDIT: Sorry I looked at the citizenship wrong. I thought that A and C were from the same state. lol

The claim by A against C would have SMJ under 1332.

[rklafehn]

Before ever relying on 28 USC 1367, you should see if there is an individual, independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the claim in question (e.g. look to see if it can be brought properly into federal court under 28 USC 1331 or 1332).

In this case, the claim you are talking about satisfies the two requirements of 28 USC 1332 and has its own independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Now, if the amount-in-controversy was not met, then, as long as the original P and the impleaded party are diverse and the claim the original P has against the impleaded party satisfies 1367(a), arising from the same nucleus or set of operative facts, then 1367(b) does not apply because even though the party was joined under Rule 14 and the claim is by the original P, it does not destroy diversity. 1367(b) was created to prevent claims like that in Kroger. This claim is distinct from that one.

I echo the sentiment in the other responses: why am I answering this after already taking my CivPro final?!?

[The Gentleman]

Now, if the amount-in-controversy was not met, then, as long as the original P and the impleaded party are diverse and the claim the original P has against the impleaded party satisfies 1367(a), arising from the same nucleus or set of operative facts, then 1367(b) does not apply because even though the party was joined under Rule 14 and the claim is by the original P, it does not destroy diversity. 1367(b) was created to prevent claims like that in Kroger. This claim is distinct from that one.

Not sure if this is right. The plain language of 1367(b) prohibits supplemental jurisdiction over claims made by plaintiffs against parties joined under rule 14. So if A, a plaintiff, wants to assert a claim against C, a party joined under rule 14, then A has to meet the requirements of 1332. If the amount in controversy isn't met in A's claim against C, then there's no SMJ over that claim even though they are diverse. A plaintiff cannot aggregate $$$ against multiple defendants to satisfy 1332.

[rklafehn]

Parsing together the relevant clauses of 28 USC 1367(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 . . . when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332."

[ElectricDreamMachine]

Thanks for the responses everyone!

Parsing together the relevant clauses of 28 USC 1367(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 . . . when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332."

EDIT: But wouldn't the fact that the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied technically be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of 1332, even if the parties are diverse? And if so, you couldn't use 1367 at all?

[The Gentleman]

when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332."

Right "A" filing a state law claim against "C" when the amount in controversy is not met would be inconsistent with 1332.

Although I'm totally fried right now, and I probably got a LP in Civ Pro. (The equivalent of a you really F'd up at HLS)