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?
Supplemental J Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:27 pm
Re: Supplemental J
"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.
-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.
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:35 pm
Re: Supplemental J
Thank you. What about multiple plaintiffs and claim aggregation? Does that allow for wiggling around the 75k?
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:27 pm
Re: Supplemental J
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.
- Atmosphere
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm
Re: Supplemental J
A single P is allowed to aggregate claims against a single defendant to meet the jx req, regardless of whether the claims are relatedemwallen 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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login