Yugihoe wrote:Effingham wrote:This one keeps bugging me...
Developer, from state A, files a breach of contract action against General Contractor, from state B. General Contractor impleads Subcontractor from state B properly for indemnification. General Contractor then also files a tort claim against Subcontractor claiming that Subcontractor stole $80,000 worth of equipment from General Contractor at the work-site. Answer is that General Contractor can only properly assert the indemnity claim, because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the tort claim. The explanation states that the tort claim is unrelated to the Developer's claim in federal court. Is this accurate? How narrow is the common nucleus of operative fact analysis?
Pretty narrow. The anchoring claim (dev v. gen contractor) is a breach of contract action. The tort claim that gen contractor has against sub contractor is not going to have a common operation of fact or questions of law. Contract law is different, and presumably so are facts regarding a separate tort action.
slightly different hypo. If P brings in two parties those two parties can sue each other for whatever they want within the supplemental jurisdiction T/O test, right? Let's say P sued for several different claims: breach, negligence, etc. They'd have a lot to go with, but they couldn't litigate a separate contract dispute.