Can someone explain the Exxon v. Allapattah exception to me?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
dannynoonan87
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:36 pm

Can someone explain the Exxon v. Allapattah exception to me?

Postby dannynoonan87 » Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:34 pm

I know I'm going to get an exam question about it because prof stressed that this is an instance where if you just follow the rules you WON'T arrive at the correct answer.

So there's multiple P's in a diversity case. Even though they were joined by rule 20, 1367(b) doesn't block their claim so long as complete diversity is met, and one of the original claims meets the amount in controversy?

:oops:

User avatar
MarcusAurelius
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Can someone explain the Exxon v. Allapattah exception to me?

Postby MarcusAurelius » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:29 pm

the rule is simply that all plaintiffs must be completely diverse from all defendants. you can't use supplemental jurisdiction to get subject matter jurisdiction over a non-diverse party, but you can use it to get jurisdiction when the amount in controversy isn't met.

If supplemental jurisdiction were allowed over non-diverse parties then it would overrule Strawbridge

User avatar
dannynoonan87
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:36 pm

Re: Can someone explain the Exxon v. Allapattah exception to me?

Postby dannynoonan87 » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:41 pm

So P1 is from NY suing D from CA for $100k. P2 is from CA and tries to sue D for $100k. Supplemental J ISN'T o.k. because there's no complete diversity (Strawbridge)

But if P1 is from NY and sues D from CA for $100k, and P2 is from AK and sues D (CA) for $50k, this is o.k. It meets complete diversity even though the amount in controversy isn't met, so we use 1367 Supplemental.

Would it matter if both P's were citizens of the same state? e.g. P1 and P2 are NY, D is from CA, P1 sues for $100k, but P2 sues for only $50k? Is supplemental granted?

User avatar
MarcusAurelius
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Can someone explain the Exxon v. Allapattah exception to me?

Postby MarcusAurelius » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:49 pm

dannynoonan87 wrote:So P1 is from NY suing D from CA for $100k. P2 is from CA and tries to sue D for $100k. Supplemental J ISN'T o.k. because there's no complete diversity (Strawbridge)

But if P1 is from NY and sues D from CA for $100k, and P2 is from AK and sues D (CA) for $50k, this is o.k. It meets complete diversity even though the amount in controversy isn't met, so we use 1367 Supplemental.

Would it matter if both P's were citizens of the same state? e.g. P1 and P2 are NY, D is from CA, P1 sues for $100k, but P2 sues for only $50k? Is supplemental granted?


It doesn't matter if there are co-plaintiffs from the same state. Plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants. Supplemental jurisdiction would be granted in that scenario.

User avatar
dannynoonan87
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:36 pm

Re: Can someone explain the Exxon v. Allapattah exception to me?

Postby dannynoonan87 » Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:16 pm

thanks braj!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests