1367(b) - supplemental jurisdiction restrictions Forum

[CCA]

I don't really understand these exceptions and I keep trying to figure it out in my head, but it is not working. I am going to go over joinder soon and maybe that will clear things up, but for now... does supp jx of party work together with joinder? I thought supp jx was an independent basis for bringing in another party. Why doesn't the P just join under supp jx and not the FRCP rules?

If a party is already joined, why do we even need supp jx? I am totally missing all of this... fml

you always need jurisdiction. joinder does nothing for you if a court doesn't have PJ over all the parties or SMJ over the case. 1367 expands the situations in which a federal court has SMJ.

Ok so when I am dealing with joinder, do I need to go look at 1367 and make sure that there is jurisdiction to allow joinder? OR is the joinder rule sufficient for determining that? In that case, why would I need supp jx at all?

Supplementary jurisdiction is when what you are trying to join doesn't belong in federal court independently. You need at least one claim that can get you into federal court, then you look to 1367 to see if something without jurisdiction can be joined to that. There can also be joinder when everything has independent federal jurisdiction, and then you only have to look to the joinder rules without 1367, but you would still need regular jurisdiction no matter what.

[vanwinkle]

I guess the point that needs to be made clear is this:

Joinder rules do not grant jurisdiction.

A court needs subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim to hear it. Joinder is just the process for how you add additional claims, jurisdiction gives the court authority to hear the claim. You need both. You determine if the claim can be joined using joinder rules and you determine if the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim by looking at the rules for jurisdiction. You do these two things separately and independently, one does not provide the other. Without both being present the court cannot hear the case.

The joinder rule doesn't grant jurisdiction, it just explains how the claim would be joined if courts had jurisdiction. If the claim can be joined, then you look at whether jurisdiction is there or not. It's a two-step process, with the joinder rule being one step and the jurisdiction question being another step. They're entirely separate.

[nmoor1501]

I just learned joinder and supplemental jx make much more sense now.

[kdawg666]

you can join someone under rule 14, 19, 20 and as a matter of pleading be ok. However, SMJ may not be.

[vamedic03]

But, if you can implead someone under R14, you should have sup. jur. as what can be a more closely related claim than a derivative liability claim . . .

[vanwinkle]

But, if you can implead someone under R14, you should have sup. jur. as what can be a more closely related claim than a derivative liability claim . . .

Yes, but 1367(b) specifically denies supplemental jurisdiction for original plaintiffs joining parties under rule 14 if doing so would destroy complete diversity in a diversity suit. That's the catch.

[vamedic03]

But, if you can implead someone under R14, you should have sup. jur. as what can be a more closely related claim than a derivative liability claim . . .

Yes, but 1367(b) specifically denies supplemental jurisdiction for original plaintiffs joining parties under rule 14 if doing so would destroy complete diversity in a diversity suit. That's the catch.

But 1367(b) isn't implicated here; the R 14 party is being impleaded by the defendant on a derivative liability claim and 1367(b) only refers to the plaintiff . . . the original plaintiff A, would not be able to tack on a claim against C; but there is no reason that B cannot implead non-diverse C on a derivative liability claim

[vanwinkle]

But, if you can implead someone under R14, you should have sup. jur. as what can be a more closely related claim than a derivative liability claim . . .

Yes, but 1367(b) specifically denies supplemental jurisdiction for original plaintiffs joining parties under rule 14 if doing so would destroy complete diversity in a diversity suit. That's the catch.

But 1367(b) isn't implicated here; the R 14 party is being impleaded by the defendant on a derivative liability claim and 1367(b) only refers to the plaintiff . . . the original plaintiff A, would not be able to tack on a claim against C; but there is no reason that B cannot implead non-diverse C on a derivative liability claim

Right. I thought your statement was meant to be a little more open-ended (it didn't say C, it just said "if you can implead someone", which is a lot more general); apparently that's just a misunderstanding. For OP's case, since B isn't the original plaintiff, 1367(b) doesn't apply to him. I think we're in agremeent.

[superserial]

But, if you can implead someone under R14, you should have sup. jur. as what can be a more closely related claim than a derivative liability claim . . .

Yes, but 1367(b) specifically denies supplemental jurisdiction for original plaintiffs joining parties under rule 14 if doing so would destroy complete diversity in a diversity suit. That's the catch.

But 1367(b) isn't implicated here; the R 14 party is being impleaded by the defendant on a derivative liability claim and 1367(b) only refers to the plaintiff . . . the original plaintiff A, would not be able to tack on a claim against C; but there is no reason that B cannot implead non-diverse C on a derivative liability claim

1367(b) is implicated when P impleads a party under Rule 14(b) or when P tries to bring a claim against a party impleaded by D.