Question about Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367(b) Forum

[heraclitus]

Does anyone know whether 1367(b) will exclude supplemental J in the following situation:

P sues D in diversity. D counterclaims P. P impleads third party for contribution for D counterclaim. However P and third party are from same state.

Is complete diversity destroyed in this case? Third party could be considered on P side, since he can defeat P or D in order to escape contribution. So technically, complete diversity is not destroyed since they are on the same side?
Or is there no suppl. J because P could not have sued third party originally in federal court since they are not diverse?

A similar case would be crossclaims. Crossclaims satisfy 1367(a), but if P crossclaims against another P by rule 19/20 from the same state, does 1367(b) preclude suppl. J in this case?

Thanks in advance for anyone's input!!

[PSLaplace]

Does anyone know whether 1367(b) will exclude supplemental J in the following situation:

P sues D in diversity. D counterclaims P. P impleads third party for contribution for D counterclaim. However P and third party are from same state.

Is complete diversity destroyed in this case? Third party could be considered on P side, since he can defeat P or D in order to escape contribution. So technically, complete diversity is not destroyed since they are on the same side?
Or is there no suppl. J because P could not have sued third party originally in federal court since they are not diverse?

A similar case would be crossclaims. Crossclaims satisfy 1367(a), but if P crossclaims against another P by rule 19/20 from the same state, does 1367(b) preclude suppl. J in this case?

Thanks in advance for anyone's input!!

The proper unit of analysis for complete diversity is at the claim-level.
If P impleads X, P is a plaintiff in a claim against X, who is the defendant to that claim; that X may defeat the claim by prevailing against D is immaterial. If bringing X in would violate complete diversity (i.e., diversity between each plaintiff and each defendant at the claim-level), the impleader will not be allowed (unless, of course, there's 1331 jurisdiction over it).

It is curious to note, however, that D can implead X, even when they are from the same state; 1367(b) only removes supplemental jurisdiction from claims by the original plaintiff and claims against Rule 19 parties (when the claims would violate complete diversity).

[heraclitus]

So basically, in diversity cases, whenever original P makes a claim to X joined under 14, 19, 20, 24 (based on suppl. J) or whenever a P joined by 19 or 24 makes a claim against X and X is from the same state, 1367(b) would bar suppl. J?

And so the crossclaim example I gave would also be barred?

Also what happens if P and X are from different states, but the claim in less than 75k?

[PSLaplace]

So basically, in diversity cases, whenever original P makes a claim to X joined under 14, 19, 20, 24 (based on suppl. J) or whenever a P joined by 19 or 24 makes a claim against X and X is from the same state, 1367(b) would bar suppl. J?

And so the crossclaim example I gave would also be barred?

Yes.

There is, perhaps, one exception to this strict rule.
Imagine the following: P sues D who impleads X. P and X are from the same state. X then claims against P under Rule 14(a)(2)(D).

In theory, Rule 13(a) now compels P to counterclaim against X anything that arises from the same transaction or occurrence. But such a claim, under a literal reading of 1367(b), will not have supplemental jurisdiction; it is 1) a claim by the original plaintiff against 2) a party joined under Rule 14 that 3) destroys complete diversity.

This is probably an unintended consequence (typical sloppy legislative drafting) and a Court might be willing to allow 1367 jurisdiction notwithstanding the literal meaning, but I don't know of any relevant caselaw.

Also what happens if P and X are from different states, but the claim in less than 75k?

I have to imagine this is allowed, given the ruling in Exxon Mobil (though whether it's limited to class actions is ambiguous):

The Court held in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., that the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, abrogated the long-standing rule of Zahn v. International Paper Co. that, in a diversity-only class action...each class member must individually satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of the diversity jurisdiction statute. The Court held that so long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff has claims sufficient to meet the required jurisdictional amount, Section 1367 authorizes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the related claims of additional plaintiffs...

By the way, though these are interesting questions, it is virtually impossible for these scenarios to come up on your standard 3-hour Civ Pro issue-spotter. Trying to build such obscure joinder+1367 questions into the exam will preclude the testing of far more important material, and your professor won't do it (unless he's a total nutjob with tenure).

[heraclitus]

thanks for your answers! yeah, i guess they will prob not appear on an exam, but i was just curious....=)