1367(b)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
bobbys000
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:13 pm

1367(b)

Postby bobbys000 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:16 pm

For 1367(b) the way I understand it is that if a claim is brought by a plaintiff against a person made a party by rule 14, 19, 20 or 24 then there is no jurisdiction, even diversity is not violated. Is this correct, or do people made parties this way have to violate diversity for jurisdiction to be taken away?

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

Re: 1367(b)

Postby ph14 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:33 pm

bobbys000 wrote:For 1367(b) the way I understand it is that if a claim is brought by a plaintiff against a person made a party by rule 14, 19, 20 or 24 then there is no jurisdiction, even diversity is not violated. Is this correct, or do people made parties this way have to violate diversity for jurisdiction to be taken away?


Ask your professor. I've heard it both ways. It's the worst written statute of all time.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: 1367(b)

Postby Bronte » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:38 am

ph14 wrote:
bobbys000 wrote:For 1367(b) the way I understand it is that if a claim is brought by a plaintiff against a person made a party by rule 14, 19, 20 or 24 then there is no jurisdiction, even diversity is not violated. Is this correct, or do people made parties this way have to violate diversity for jurisdiction to be taken away?


Ask your professor. I've heard it both ways. It's the worst written statute of all time.


Oh I don't know about that. Let me introduce you to 11 U.S.C. § 365(b)(1)(A):

(b)(1) If there has been a default in an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, the trustee may not assume such contract or lease unless, at the time of assumption of such contract or lease, the trustee--

(A) cures, or provides adequate assurance that the trustee will promptly cure, such default other than a default that is a breach of a provision relating to the satisfaction of any provision (other than a penalty rate or penalty provision) relating to a default arising from any failure to perform nonmonetary obligations under an unexpired lease of real property, if it is impossible for the trustee to cure such default by performing nonmonetary acts at and after the time of assumption, except that if such default arises from a failure to operate in accordance with a nonresidential real property lease, then such default shall be cured by performance at and after the time of assumption in accordance with such lease, and pecuniary losses resulting from such default shall be compensated in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph;

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: 1367(b)

Postby Bronte » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:56 am

bobbys000 wrote:For 1367(b) the way I understand it is that if a claim is brought by a plaintiff against a person made a party by rule 14, 19, 20 or 24 then there is no jurisdiction, even diversity is not violated. Is this correct, or do people made parties this way have to violate diversity for jurisdiction to be taken away?


To answer your question, I do not think this is correct. While I second the advice to ask your professor, what you're saying is not really making sense to me. This provision is about supplemental jurisdiction. Subsection (b) specifically addresses the case of supplemental jurisdiction premised on diversity jurisdiction.

The part you're referring to says that a plaintiff with a claim premised on diversity jurisdiction cannot add claims against additional defendants added to the suit by impleader, mandatory joinder, compulsory joinder, or intervention "when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of" diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the provision only applies if diversity is destroyed by the impleader, joinder, or intervention.

If complete diversity remains in tact, there is no need for supplemental jurisdiction, and thus subsection (b) does not apply at all. Note that it says: "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) . . ." It does not say the courts shall not have jurisdiction at all. If they still have diversity jurisdiction or some other independent basis for jurisdiction (e.g., federal question jurisdiction), then all the claims can remain in federal court.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dylicious, Gray and 9 guests