Supplemental Jurisdiction -- §1367(b) Question Forum

[ph14]

Or is it a synthesis of the two, something like:

P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleaded D2 (Iowa)

P1 cannot claim against D2 under supplemental jurisdiction because it would be inconsistent with diversity.

P1 (Iowa) + Rule 24 Intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)

P1 cannot cross-claim against P2 (and P2 cannot cross-claim against P1) because it would be inconsistent with diversity.

P1 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska) + Rule 14 impleaded D2 (Nebraska)

P1 can claim against D2, because it is not inconsistent with diversity? Even though this seems to directly contradict E&E problem 8 in Ch 16...

[ph14]

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?

Yes.

So the acing book is correct.

So does this mean the qualification of "when inconsistent with diversity requirements" only applied to claims by rule 19 and 24 plaintiffs?

I dunno this is what i'm wondering too.

[ph14]

Okay, we came to the conclusion that 1367(b) codified Kroger, right?

So how would a situation like this be barred, since it was not what the court was forbidding in Kroger:

P1 (Iowa) + Rule 24 Intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)

P1 cannot cross-claim against P2 (and P2 cannot cross-claim against P1) because it would be inconsistent with diversity.

[letsdoit]

To answer your original question, it WOULD be allowed, because the antecedent "when exercising jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332" applies to all of 1367(b).

[ph14]

To answer your original question, it WOULD be allowed, because the antecedent "when exercising jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332" applies to all of 1367(b).

Are you saying this would be allowed?

P1 (Iowa) + Rule 24 Intervenor P2 (Iowa) v. D1 (Nebraska)

P1 cannot cross-claim against P2 (and P2 cannot cross-claim against P1) because it would be inconsistent with diversity.

[Wild Card]

No, the "when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332." part applies to all the claims listed in 1367(b).

I think we're talking past each other, then. I'm just saying, supplemental jurisdiction isn't fine just if the joined parties maintain diversity.

Nevermind, I think you're right. OP: if you have the E&E, I think Chapter 16 Question 8 is this situation.

Ah great find. Thanks so much.

Just for anyone reading this, the problem basically was

A (NY) v. B (OH)
B impleads (R. 14) C (OH)
A files a claim against C

E&E says no supplemental jurisdiction over A's claim against C, since 1367(b) doesn't allow it-- even though it doesn't destroy diversity. However, the E&E adds that there may be an independent basis of SMJ; the parties are diverse, so if it meets the amount in controversy requirement, the court can hear it on diversity grounds.

I just posed this hypo to Arthur Miller, the King of Civil Procedure: to clarify, the court would have supplemental jurisdiction over A's 14a(3) claim against C.

If your professor claims otherwise... listen to your professor.

[NoBladesNoBows]