Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question Forum

[heavoldgotjuice]

Impleader is very tricky to me ...

If B (Defendant) impleads C (3rd Party Defendant), and C asserts a claim against A (Plaintiff) ... (assuming it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence, and all the parties are completely diverse), what happens if C can only muster up a 30k claim against A?

1.) Would C fail because he does not meet the 75k amount in controversy?

2.) What if C's claim again A is merely a state law battery claim that arises out of the same set of facts? Does Supplemental Jurisdiction still fail him?


Thanks everyone

[1l2016]

1) C could use 1367 to get SMJ

2) C would again use 1367, assuming the claim arose out of the same t/o as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction (A-->B)

[lawhopeful10]

1) C could use 1367 to get SMJ

2) C would again use 1367, assuming the claim arose out of the same t/o as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction (A-->B)

Are you sure about 1). 1367(b) says supplemental jurisdiction is not okay if it would be inconsistent with 1332. 1332 requires claims to exceed 75,000 so I would think even if they are diverse the plaintiff can't sue the implead party. I could be wrong though.

This is assuming the plaintiff is suing a party brought under rule 14,19 ect.

[1l2016]

1) C could use 1367 to get SMJ

2) C would again use 1367, assuming the claim arose out of the same t/o as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction (A-->B)

Are you sure about 1). 1367(b) says supplemental jurisdiction is not okay if it would be inconsistent with 1332. 1332 requires claims to exceed 75,000 so I would think even if they are diverse the plaintiff can't sue the implead party. I could be wrong though.

This is assuming the plaintiff is suing a party brought under rule 14,19 ect.

1367(b) only precludes claims brought under 1332 by plaintiffs against parties joinded under rules 14, etc. C is a 3rd party plaintiff, and not a plaintiff, so 1367(b) wouldn't preclude it.

[lawhopeful10]

O okay reading fail on my part. That makes sense.