Supplemental J

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
bananaphone

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Supplemental J

Postby bananaphone » Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:14 am

Does anyone have a list or is anyone willing to explain when a court does and does not have supplemental jurisdiction in these cases?

I.e intervention, counterclaim, cross claim, permissive and required joinder, impleader, interpleader

1. When a new party or claim meets diversity but NOT amount in controversy
2. When a new party or claim meets neither diversity or amount in controversy

Does the answer change if the original claim came in via Federal Question instead of diversity?

emwallen

New
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:27 pm

Re: Supplemental J

Postby emwallen » Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:33 am

"First you ask if §1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction for a claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a case already in federal court — whether that was in federal court because of fedQ or diversity.
-Is there a “common nucleus of operative fact”
-Then if original claim was based ONLY on diversity, you ask if §1367(b) takes away supplement jurisdiction, essentially because you are adding a claim against a new party
-Rule of thumb: a current plaintiff or someone trying to come in as a plaintiff can’t use supplemental jurisdiction to get around maximum diversity. A defendant can ALWAYS use supplemental jurisdiction."

taken from NYU outline. rule of thumb: anything a defendant wants to do it basically can, and in a case with original diversity jurisdiction, almost everything a plaintiff does requires complete diversity +75k, except a permissively joined plaintiff only needs to satisfy complete diversity.

bananaphone

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: Supplemental J

Postby bananaphone » Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:40 am

Thank you. What about multiple plaintiffs and claim aggregation? Does that allow for wiggling around the 75k?

emwallen

New
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:27 pm

Re: Supplemental J

Postby emwallen » Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:46 am

could be wrong, but plaintiffs generally can't aggregate claims to hit +75k; one plaintiff must have +75k in order for plaintiffs with smaller amounts in controversy to tag along. so as long as one plaintiff has the required amount (through aggregating its claims against a defendant/jointly liable defendants), others with smaller amounts can join as long as they don't violate complete diversity.

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Supplemental J

Postby Atmosphere » Sat Jul 21, 2018 2:35 pm

emwallen wrote:could be wrong, but plaintiffs generally can't aggregate claims to hit +75k; one plaintiff must have +75k in order for plaintiffs with smaller amounts in controversy to tag along. so as long as one plaintiff has the required amount (through aggregating its claims against a defendant/jointly liable defendants), others with smaller amounts can join as long as they don't violate complete diversity.


A single P is allowed to aggregate claims against a single defendant to meet the jx req, regardless of whether the claims are related



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Great45, IndoubtputC, misiaczek, nparks3 and 68 guests