Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
nyg22
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:31 am

Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

Postby nyg22 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:35 am

Hi all - Wanted to run a hypo by you

Person X (NY) sues Person Y (PA) via diversity. Person Y impleads Person Z (NY).

I believe the court has the supplemental jurisdiction over the impleader claim as long as Person X does not bring a claim against Person Z, which would be barred by 1367(b) and the Kroger case. My only lingering concern is that complete diversity is broken, but my gut says complete diversity is not broken as Z is impleaded, not joined. Anyone have any thoughts?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

Postby bk1 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:48 am

You're right, impleading does not spoil diversity (otherwise Ds would do this all the time to get out of fed court).

User avatar
Doorkeeper
Posts: 4872
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

Postby Doorkeeper » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:48 am

I believe that an impleader claim is treated as a new claim for the purposes of diversity, so complete diversity would still still be satisfied.

You are correct to say that 1367(b) is not implicated in this hypo.

Also note that under 1367(c), the court may decline to exercise their supplemental jurisdiction in the case based on the factors listed in (1)-(4).

nyg22
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:31 am

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

Postby nyg22 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:50 am

Thanks very much!

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

Postby Tom Joad » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:53 am

nyg22 wrote:Hi all - Wanted to run a hypo by you

Person X (NY) sues Person Y (PA) via diversity. Person Y impleads Person Z (NY).

I believe the court has the supplemental jurisdiction over the impleader claim as long as Person X does not bring a claim against Person Z, which would be barred by 1367(b) and the Kroger case. My only lingering concern is that complete diversity is broken, but my gut says complete diversity is not broken as Z is impleaded, not joined. Anyone have any thoughts?

X just can't bring a state claim against Z. No supplemental jurisdiction there. But impleader claims don't mess with diversity in themselves.

User avatar
dietcoke0
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:46 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

Postby dietcoke0 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:23 am

Make sure to walk it through all the steps

There will be no 1331, because there is no federal question.

There may be 1332, because of complete diversity of parties. If the amount in controversy is met, then the claim may be heard by the federal court.

For Counts 2, Y will need to implead by using Rule 19/20.

Talk about which rule applies.

For the new claim, there will be no 1331 since it's no a federal question.

There will be no 1332 jurisdiction, because there is no complete diversity.

There will be 1367(a), supplemental jurisdiction however if it claim is based on the same T/O

1367(b) does not apply here since 1367(b) is only for plaintiffs.

Therefore, there is likely jurisdiction on all claims in federal courts.

mr.hands
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:23 pm

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction/Diversity Q

Postby mr.hands » Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:36 am

I think an easy way to do this is to first attach the party, then assess SMJ and supplemental. Don't try and assess jurisdiction and impleader together.

First, third party can be impleaded b/c it arises out of same T/O

Now look to jurisdiction. See if Fed Q

Then see if Diversity

If neither of the above, look to supplemental jurisdiction. If you can't get Fed Q, diversity, or supp then no dice

Done




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jphiggo, Propain and 13 guests