Supplemental JX question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
ocplaytime
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am

Supplemental JX question

Postby ocplaytime » Wed May 16, 2012 9:25 pm

can someone clear this situation up for me please..

an absentee wants to bring himself into a diversity case through rule 24(a) - intervention by right. if this guy intervenes it will ruin diversity.

to grant supp jx in this situation, will the court go to through rule 19 factors for required party? or will it be rejected because it will ruin diversity

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 16, 2012 9:41 pm

Rule 19 doesn't apply to your situation. If the intervenor is of right under 24(a), and they intervene on plaintiff's side to assert a state law claim, 1367(a) will be satisfied but there is no supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(b) (read the language it pretty explicitly bars supplemental jurisdiction in this situation). If they attempt to intervene as a defendant to assert a state law claim, 1367(b) won't apply (claim not by a plaintiff or someone on plaintiff side), so unless a reason to decline supplemental jx under 1367(c) applies, this claim will have supplemental jurisdiction. Seems weird, but I think this is the outcome under a plain reading of the language of 1367.

ocplaytime
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby ocplaytime » Wed May 16, 2012 9:44 pm

so if hes trying to intervene as a D but he is from the same state as P then he gets supp jx?

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 16, 2012 9:46 pm

Just to clarify re Rule 19: an intervenor of right will satisfy 19(a)(1)(B)(i), but if the party is attempting to intervene under Rule 24, the court won't analyze under Rule 19.

ocplaytime
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby ocplaytime » Wed May 16, 2012 9:46 pm

and if hes trying to intervene as a P but hes from the same state as D then its outright rejection?

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 16, 2012 9:47 pm

ocplaytime wrote:so if hes trying to intervene as a D but he is from the same state as P then he gets supp jx?

If I am reading the language of 1367 correctly, then I think yes, there will be supplemental jx even if he intervenes as a D from the same state as P.

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 16, 2012 9:48 pm

ocplaytime wrote:and if hes trying to intervene as a P but hes from the same state as D then its outright rejection?

Intervening as a P triggers 1367(b) (along with fact that he is asserting state law claim), and since allowing supplemental jx in that situation would be inconsistent with 1332 (no diversity), supplemental jurisdiction will be barred even though 1367(a)/Gibbs is satisfied.

ocplaytime
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby ocplaytime » Wed May 16, 2012 9:54 pm

in layman terms the reasoning behind all this is basically to give an intervenor the right to come in as a D to be able to amply defend himself but won't help him out as a P since the original P is the "master of his claim" and this random has no right to come ruin his diversity case against D right

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 16, 2012 9:57 pm

It is just bad statute-drafting.

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 16, 2012 9:58 pm

ocplaytime wrote:in layman terms the reasoning behind all this is basically to give an intervenor the right to come in as a D to be able to amply defend himself but won't help him out as a P since the original P is the "master of his claim" and this random has no right to come ruin his diversity case against D right

Also, an intervenor isn't necessarily trying to defend himself. He is intervening to protect some interest of his if existing parties don't adequately protect that interest. So, an intervenor of right might choose to intervene on the defendant side so as to avoid 1367(b) issues, simply because the statute was drafted carelessly.

User avatar
arvcondor
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby arvcondor » Wed May 16, 2012 11:35 pm

I was under the impression that if it ruins diversity and the forum is based on diversity, there's no supp. jurisdiction, period.

ocplaytime
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am

Re: Supplemental JX question

Postby ocplaytime » Thu May 17, 2012 12:19 am

any ideas




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baller31, Google Feedfetcher, pancakes3, TheSpanishMain and 9 guests