1367(b) question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
zanzbar
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:14 pm

1367(b) question

Postby zanzbar » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:51 pm

My original interpretation of 1367(b) was a courts were never to allow a claim by a Plaintiff against a party joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, and claims brought by Plaintiffs under Rule 19 or 24, however, when doing some last minute studying I noticed this clause at the end. "When exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332." So does this mean the Plaintiff or plaintiffs joined under rule 19 or 24 could bring these claims if it does not destroy diversity?

User avatar
renardthecrocs
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:35 pm

Re: 1367(b) question

Postby renardthecrocs » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:57 pm

zanzbar wrote:My original interpretation of 1367(b) was a courts were never to allow a claim by a Plaintiff against a party joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, and claims brought by Plaintiffs under Rule 19 or 24, however, when doing some last minute studying I noticed this clause at the end. "When exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332." So does this mean the Plaintiff or plaintiffs joined under rule 19 or 24 could bring these claims if it does not destroy diversity?

1367 is meant to tack some jurisdiction on to the Defendant side, not remove it from the Plaintiff side. 1367(b) carves out some exceptions for plaintiffs who may be trying to use supplemental jurisdiction to get what would ultimately be minimum diversity. So if Ps were properly joined and didn't destroy diversity, they wouldn't need 1367 and thus their joinder is proper.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests