Diversity jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction Q Forum

[stargazin]

The more I look at 1367, the more confused I get. 1367(b) says no supplemental jurisdiction when proposed plaintiffs joined under Rules 19 or 24 are not diverse. But what if the proposed Ps are diverse from D but don't meet the 75000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction? Is there supplemental jurisdiction there?

What about a similar situation involving Rule 20 permissive joinder: P1 and P2 join under Rule 20, permissive joinder, against D. P1 satisfies all the diversity requirements. P2 is also diverse from D but doesn't meet the 75000 requirement. Can P2's claim "hitch a ride" with P1's claim under 1367?

[DocHawkeye]

The answer is both cases is probably no. The courts have broad discretion in supplemental jurisdiction, but generally, such a claim must meet the standards of getting into federal court. Because the claim in example (A) does not meet the requirement of diversity jurisdiction, the court is unlikely to grant supplemental jurisdiction since one of the essential elements of supplemental jurisdiction is a common nexus of operative fact (see United Mine Workers). Since there is no federal claim (because the amount in controversy doesn't meet the federal standard) there cannot be a nexus of operative fact between the federal claim and state claim on the basis of diversity alone.

In example (B), P2's claim is not sufficient to meet the federal threshold and therefore cannot be joined in federal court unless P1 and P2's claims are a single undivided interest. If P1 and P2 are claiming damages separately, then P2 must peruse damages in state court.

[stargazin]

Thank you, that really helps!!

[musicfor18]

I don't think the response above to (a) is quite right. The result is right, but the analysis isn't. 1367(b) says no supp. jur over claims by Ps joined under R. 19 if it would not fulfill the diversity requirements. This includes diversity of citizenship AND amount-in-controversy. So, the problem here has nothing to do with "common nucleus of operative facts." A claim by a R. 19 plaintiff will always have a common nucleus with the main claim. The problem is that it doesn't meet the amount requirement.

[musicfor18]

I'm also not sure the response to (b) is correct, but I'm less sure. The statement about "undivided interests" is relevant to aggregation of claim amounts, but I'm not sure that's relevant when analyzing supp. jur. 1367(b) doesn't forbid supp. jur. over claims by R. 20 Ps. I'm not sure how this actually plays out, though.

Also, courts have discretion to decline supp. jur. even if 1367 is met, but I don't think they have discretion to grant it if 1367 isn't met.

[stargazin]

Thank you, I really appreciate it!!

[stargazin]

So i just found out that apparently Exxon v Allapattah (which was not one of our cases) addresses the second situation and says as yes there is supp jur with rule 20 joined Ps as long as one of the Ps satisfies the 75000 and complete diversity is not disturbed.
Thank you both again for your input!