Question Regarding "glitches" in 1367B

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
bobbyflayed
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:41 am

Question Regarding "glitches" in 1367B

Postby bobbyflayed » Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:06 pm

In regards to rule 20,24 joinders. What happens in this case?:

1.) P1 (NY) Sues P2(NJ) [Anchor Claim]
2.) P2 (NJ) joins
Result:
P1 (NY) vs P2(NJ)
P2 (NJ)

Is this permissible under 1367b? I know that it can overcome the 75k requirement but does diversity of the anchor claim make up for the joinder?

criminaltheory
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Question Regarding "glitches" in 1367B

Postby criminaltheory » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:38 am

Assuming you mean
P1 (NY) v D1 (NJ)
P2 (NJ) joins under 20.

Nope.
1367b is kind of a trick here, because P2 is joining to the same claims P1 is bringing. P2 is not asserting an independent claim that needs to/can gain jurisdiction by attachment. You can't say, "We were diverse when it filed, so lack of jurisdiction now is excused," b/c 12b1. Once P2 joins the case, there's not enough diversity and Federal court loses jurisdiction.

Supplemental jurisdiction over claims by non-diverse intervening parties (24) is explicitly barred in 1367(b); Both it and Rule 19 contain clauses that could be read to allow the joindervention if there weren't another clause forbidding it:
24: "the court must permit anyone to intervene who"
19: "and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction"
Rule 20 is always implicitly subject to diversity requirements

/1L answer




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests