Original claim is diversity jurisdiction-If A sues B and then B makes a compulsory counterclaim back against A and also joins C in the counterclaim (pursuant to 13h/19), but C would destroy diversity, would the claim against C have supplemental jurisdiction or would B be considered a plaintiff in this scenario in which supplemental jurisdiction is not available for "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under rules 14,19,20,24"?
Or since B was the original defendant, supplemental jurisdiction is allowed?
Thanks for any replies!
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:56 am
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm
If the only basis for federal jurisdiction was diversity, then any defendant from the same state as a plaintiff joined to the claim destroys it. No complete diversity means no supplemental jurisdiction.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: airdudeme and 3 guests