Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question Forum
- vanwinkle
- Posts: 8953
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
For exam advice, the best strategy is "say what your prof said". If he disagrees with Spencer, then explain why the prof is right. If he agrees with Spencer, then use Spencer's analysis. That's how you do well.
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:
P (X state) v. D (Y state)
P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?
I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.
P (X state) v. D (Y state)
P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?
I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
I thought we established above that was only when it was inconsistent with diversity.acrossthelake wrote:1367b lists it as something you can't do. "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:
P (X state) v. D (Y state)
P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?
I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.
- Hannibal
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
A plaintiff joined under Rule 24 can't bring anything against anyone. It's an explicit exemption. I doubt the intervention would have been allowed.ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:
P (X state) v. D (Y state)
P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?
I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
What?Hannibal wrote:A plaintiff joined under Rule 24 can't bring anything against anyone. It's an explicit exemption. I doubt the intervention would have been allowed.ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:
P (X state) v. D (Y state)
P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?
I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.
- Hannibal
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
Err nevermind, thought it was something else. Actually, I think this would be fine. I can see where the controversy is though.
Edit: Assuming amount in controversy is fine for the intervenor.
Edit 2: NVM, no idea what I'm talkin about.
Edit: Assuming amount in controversy is fine for the intervenor.
Edit 2: NVM, no idea what I'm talkin about.
Last edited by Hannibal on Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
In this hypo, I forgot to say but I intended the original claim to be founded on diversity under 1332.acrossthelake wrote:No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.ph14 wrote:I thought we established above that was only when it was inconsistent with diversity.acrossthelake wrote:1367b lists it as something you can't do. "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."ph14 wrote:Another 1367(b) question. Say the suit looks like this:
P (X state) v. D (Y state)
P2 (X) moves to intervene under rule 24 as a plaintiff. Court grants intervention. P then files a cross-claim against P2 arising out of the same transaction and occurrence (as is required for a cross-claim under R. 13(g)). Does 1367(b) allow this cross-claim?
I don't see how this would be inconsistent with diversity since there is still complete diversity on either side of the v, and P and P2 have subject matter jurisdiction based on 1367(a) because it is same transaction or occurrence.
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
Yes. So you have no diversity problem a la contagion theory, but you have a 1367 problem, so it will fail. If it was the P2 against P1 then I think it would be okay, but P1 against P2 is not okay since P1 is an original plaintiff.[/quote]acrossthelake wrote:In this hypo, I forgot to say but I intended the original claim to be founded on diversity under 1332.ph14 wrote:
No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.
- Hannibal
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.[/quote]ph14 wrote:Yes. So you have no diversity problem a la contagion theory, but you have a 1367 problem, so it will fail. If it was the P2 against P1 then I think it would be okay, but P1 against P2 is not okay since P1 is an original plaintiff.acrossthelake wrote:In this hypo, I forgot to say but I intended the original claim to be founded on diversity under 1332.ph14 wrote:
No, we established above that this is only relevant if the original claim was diversity and you were therefore coming under 1332 rather than using federal question. Destroying complete diversity is a separate issue.
I agree with this...the court would have jurisdiction over a claim against a defensive rule 24 intervenor if the parties were still fully diverse and the amount in controversy was fine. I guess the confusion here is that we shouldn't be in 1367 at all if the amount in controversy is satisfied, since it would be covered under 1332.
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
My hypo was (cross-claim): P (X state) v. P2 (X state [same state])Hannibal wrote: I agree with this...the court would have jurisdiction over a claim against a defensive rule 24 intervenor if the parties were still fully diverse and the amount in controversy was fine. I guess the confusion here is that we shouldn't be in 1367 at all if the amount in controversy is satisfied, since it would be covered under 1332.
cross-claim arises out of the same transaction and occurrence and nondiverse parties. 1367(b) problem? if so, why?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
No. How is it forbidden under 1367(b)?acrossthelake wrote:You mean, why was 1367b written with the rules as it is? I don't have a good defense for it, off the top of my head.ph14 wrote:
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.
So basically my new understanding of 1367(b) is that it applies in a Kroger situation:
P (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + impleaded D2 (Iowa)
So P can't have supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against D2 because it would be inconsistent with diversity.
But also, 1367(b) apparently applies when:
P1 (Iowa) + rule 24 intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)
And P1 files a cross-claim against P2.
Is that correct?
- AreJay711
- Posts: 3406
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
Pro-tip: All civ pro questions can be answered by referencing Rule 1
(Note: I did not earn an A in civ pro)
(Note: I did not earn an A in civ pro)
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
Further, would that mean that:
P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)
P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?
P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)
P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
So then the Acing book was correct.acrossthelake wrote:Yes.ph14 wrote:No. How is it forbidden under 1367(b)?acrossthelake wrote:You mean, why was 1367b written with the rules as it is? I don't have a good defense for it, off the top of my head.ph14 wrote:
Why is there a 1367(b) problem though? It doesn't seem to be inconsistent with diversity in the way of Kroger, since there is complete diversity on both sides of the v.
So basically my new understanding of 1367(b) is that it applies in a Kroger situation:
P (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + impleaded D2 (Iowa)
So P can't have supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against D2 because it would be inconsistent with diversity.
But also, 1367(b) apparently applies when:
P1 (Iowa) + rule 24 intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)
And P1 files a cross-claim against P2.
Is that correct?Any claim by an original plaintiff against someone joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 is barred by 1367b if it's trying to come in under supplemental.For cases where the jurisdictionally sufficient claim is based ONLY on Diversity:
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules,....
Something like P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)
P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2 would not be allowed. But you're saying it would not be allowed.
- Hannibal
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
The rest of the text says it's only disallowed if it's inconsistent with §1332 Diversity. Which I don't think it is.acrossthelake wrote:ph14 wrote:Any claim by an original plaintiff against someone joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 is barred by 1367b if it's trying to come in under supplemental.For cases where the jurisdictionally sufficient claim is based ONLY on Diversity:
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules,....
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
So you are saying it is okay?Hannibal wrote:The rest of the text says if it's inconsistent with §1332 Diversity. Which I don't think it is.acrossthelake wrote:ph14 wrote:Any claim by an original plaintiff against someone joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 is barred by 1367b if it's trying to come in under supplemental.For cases where the jurisdictionally sufficient claim is based ONLY on Diversity:
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules,....
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
So the acing book is correct.acrossthelake wrote:Yes.ph14 wrote:Further, would that mean that:
P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)
P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm
- Hannibal
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question
So does this mean the qualification of "when inconsistent with diversity requirements" only applied to claims by rule 19 and 24 plaintiffs?ph14 wrote:So the acing book is correct.acrossthelake wrote:Yes.ph14 wrote:Further, would that mean that:
P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleader D2 (Nebraska)
P1 claims against D2 based solely on supplemental jurisdiction (assume that no fed. question and amount in controversy not met), So it would not be inconsistent with diversity for P1 to claim against P2. Would 1367(b) prevent this?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login