Supplemental J Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this 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."
bananaphone

New
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Supplemental J

Post by 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

Post by 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: 29
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: Supplemental J

Post by 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

Post by 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: 558
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Supplemental J

Post by 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

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”