Civ Pro Question Forum

[MrKappus]

J. Kennedy too? He's only wrong about half the time.
545 US 552-554.

[98234872348]

I'm not sure this question is answered above, so here goes:

A sues B in federal court on the basis of diversity. A is from Alabama, and B is from Vermont. B hit A w/ his car while driving and injured him (A). Two weeks later, C (a citizen of Vermont) learns that the sideview mirror that randomly hit him as he walked down the sidewalk came from A's car after B hit him.

Under Rule 20(a), C joins himself to the action. What will the court do? Dismiss the claim b/c it destroys complete diversity under Strawbridge? Does this joinder of parties fail immediately b/c the court lacks constitutional SMJ? B/c I'm reading 1367(b), and it only forbids plaintiffs proposed to be joined under Rule 19 (not 20).

In short, I'm confused. Any assistance much appreciated.

He is not allowed to do this, since this would destroy complete diversity under Strawbridge. In Exxon Mobil the court found, notwithstanding that its conclusion was counter intuitive, that the complete diversity requirement continues to have vitality under 1367(b). Read example 14 in chapter 16 of the E&E for a more thorough explanation of the issue.

hth.

WTF?

Exxon Mobile is about joinder of plaintiffs and the amount in controversy requirement.

To put it as simply as possible, assuming for simplicity all amount in controversy requirements are easily met:

A(VA) sues B(PA) under 1332

C(PA) joins under rule 20 and meets the common nucleus test in 1367(a)

Jurisdiction is valid.

If you want to see how it works by applying the statute one step at a time, read the post I've quoted a half dozen times.

Disco I agree that under the statute that is correct, however, under Exxon the court upheld the requirement of complete diversity, despite that fact that it is completely irrational and does not acquiesce with the statutory language.

For instance, we have consistently interpreted § 1332 as requiring complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806); Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 375, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). The complete diversity requirement is not mandated by the Constitution, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530-531, 87 S.Ct. 1199, 18 L.Ed.2d 270 (1967), or by the plain text of § 1332(a). The Court, nonetheless, has adhered to the complete diversity**2618 rule in light of the purpose of the diversity requirement, which is to provide a federal forum for important disputes where state courts might favor, or be *554 perceived as favoring, home-state litigants. The presence of parties from the same State on both sides of a case dispels this concern, eliminating a principal reason for conferring § 1332 jurisdiction over any of the claims in the action. See Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998); Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829, 109 S.Ct. 2218, 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989). The specific purpose of the complete diversity rule explains both why we have not adopted Gibbs ' expansive interpretive approach to this aspect of the jurisdictional statute and why Gibbs does not undermine the complete diversity rule. In order for a federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under Gibbs, it must first have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action. Incomplete diversity destroys original jurisdiction with respect to all claims, so there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can adhere.

hth.

[270910]

J. Kennedy too? He's only wrong about half the time.
545 US 552-554.

Yeah, that's what Glannon quotes. This is one of those many cases where your professors warn you about trusting hornbooks. The quoted passage is re-stating the holding of Strawbridge as a truism and isn't on point at all.

I will concede that you could debate the point (look! we are!) and that the statute is a mess, but Glannon's treatment of the issue is quite sloppy.

[270910]

Upon further reflection and study (I can't believe I'm spending time on this, lol), I think my civ pro prof might just like nutty theories. I see where he was coming from, but after reviewing a few other sources what y'all are saying (as a general theory, that complete diversity fails if, looking at the entire controversy, there are plaintiffs and defendants from the same state on both sides of the action) looks like it makes much more sense.

Apologies for the curtness that elicited from me.

[MrKappus]

No worries...your answers in a ton of other threads are always on point/helpful.