Top Law Schools

Hey all,

I have some questions about civil procedure.

In federal court, can a defendant implead another party that is from the same state as the plaintiff? Would this destroy diversity? Or is it not treated as a new claim, and thus it does not need to satisfy SMJ?

With respect to supplemental jurisdiction, I know that plaintiffs cannot use it to assert additional claims against 3rd party defendants. If a plaintiff has joined another defendant to the lawsuit, but his claim doesnt meet the amount in controversy, can he use supplemental jurisdiction? Or does 1367(b) prevent plaintiffs from using SJ for claims against ALL joined parties?

I tried to word theses as clear as possible, let me know if I was unclear

Thanks in advance!

dslslave wrote:Hey all,

I have some questions about civil procedure.

In federal court, can a defendant implead another party that is from the same state as the plaintiff? Would this destroy diversity? Or is it not treated as a new claim, and thus it does not need to satisfy SMJ?

With respect to supplemental jurisdiction, I know that plaintiffs cannot use it to assert additional claims against 3rd party defendants. If a plaintiff has joined another defendant to the lawsuit, but his claim doesnt meet the amount in controversy, can he use supplemental jurisdiction? Or does 1367(b) prevent plaintiffs from using SJ for claims against ALL joined parties?

I tried to word theses as clear as possible, let me know if I was unclear

Thanks in advance!

For the first part, I'm not 100% sure about this myself. The plaintiff definitely can't bring a claim against the impleaded party because 1367(b) would take away jurisdiction on a claim by a plaintiff against someone made party by Rule 14.

For the second part, 1367(b) would take away jurisidction if the requirements of diversity are not satisfied. The only way 1367 could give jurisdiction would be if diversity and amount in controversy are satisfied. The only exception to amount in controversy would be that you could have supplemental jurisdiction over the claim from a second plaintiff against a defendant, when a second plaintiff has less than 75k but the first plaintiff has more than 75k. Can't do it with defendants though because 1367(b) is always going to take it away.

dslslave wrote:Hey all,

I have some questions about civil procedure.

In federal court, can a defendant implead another party that is from the same state as the plaintiff? Would this destroy diversity? Or is it not treated as a new claim, and thus it does not need to satisfy SMJ?

With respect to supplemental jurisdiction, I know that plaintiffs cannot use it to assert additional claims against 3rd party defendants. If a plaintiff has joined another defendant to the lawsuit, but his claim doesnt meet the amount in controversy, can he use supplemental jurisdiction? Or does 1367(b) prevent plaintiffs from using SJ for claims against ALL joined parties?

I tried to word theses as clear as possible, let me know if I was unclear

Thanks in advance!

Civ pro was awhile ago for me... but I'm pretty sure for #1 it would not destroy diversity. For #2, I don't think you can join a claim against a new defendant that does not meet the amount in controversy unless some plaintiff in the suit has an anchor claim against that defendant (i.e., at least one claim for which the court has original jurisdiction).

ggocat wrote:

dslslave wrote:Hey all,

I have some questions about civil procedure.

In federal court, can a defendant implead another party that is from the same state as the plaintiff? Would this destroy diversity? Or is it not treated as a new claim, and thus it does not need to satisfy SMJ?

With respect to supplemental jurisdiction, I know that plaintiffs cannot use it to assert additional claims against 3rd party defendants. If a plaintiff has joined another defendant to the lawsuit, but his claim doesnt meet the amount in controversy, can he use supplemental jurisdiction? Or does 1367(b) prevent plaintiffs from using SJ for claims against ALL joined parties?

I tried to word theses as clear as possible, let me know if I was unclear

Thanks in advance!

Civ pro was awhile ago for me... but I'm pretty sure for #1 it would not destroy diversity. For #2, I don't think you can join a claim against a new defendant that does not meet the amount in controversy unless some plaintiff in the suit has an anchor claim against that defendant (i.e., at least one claim for which the court has original jurisdiction).

Only one claim needs to meet the amount in controversy. For the second issue Supp. Jx is proper.

For te first, it does not matter that the Ds are from the same state. Complete diversity is established when all Ps are diverse from all Ds

mikeytwoshoes wrote:In federal court, can a defendant implead another party that is from the same state as the plaintiff? Would this destroy diversity? Or is it not treated as a new claim, and thus it does not need to satisfy SMJ?

When a defendant brings in a new 3rd party, a party which would normally destroy complete diversity, its effect on complete diversity is basically ignored by the court. Otherwise every diversity cause of action would have a defendant bringing in a new party to destroy diversity and game the system. Diversity is affected by new parties when they are brought in by the plaintiff. (i.e. P (CA) v. D(TX); then P (CA) brings in T (CA) after the fact.)

See Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger:
Kroger (Neb) sued D (from some other state) in federal court. D impleaded Owen (Neb), then D got there MSJ motion granted because they had not been liable at all, Kroger had mistakenly sued them thinking they were Owen basically. So D was knocked out by the MSJ, leaving Kroger (Neb) v. Owen (Neb) and the case was dismissed for lack of diversity jx by SCOTUS.

dslslave wrote:Hey all,

I have some questions about civil procedure.

In federal court, can a defendant implead another party that is from the same state as the plaintiff? Would this destroy diversity? Or is it not treated as a new claim, and thus it does not need to satisfy SMJ?

With respect to supplemental jurisdiction, I know that plaintiffs cannot use it to assert additional claims against 3rd party defendants. If a plaintiff has joined another defendant to the lawsuit, but his claim doesnt meet the amount in controversy, can he use supplemental jurisdiction? Or does 1367(b) prevent plaintiffs from using SJ for claims against ALL joined parties?

I tried to word theses as clear as possible, let me know if I was unclear

Thanks in advance!

Here are my two cents:


Second question:
If you have one plaintiff who meets the amount diversity + amount in controversy then the claim of the joined plaintiff could be heard under supplemental jurisdiction. However, in order to determine this you have to go through the following steps.
1) Under 1367(a) you need to ask Whether there is an independent basis to hear one of the claims (in this case the answer would be yes because the 1st plaintiff meets the diversity +amount in controversy requirement under 1332)
2) Whether the second claim shares a common nucleus of operative facts with the claim over which the court has an independent basis for jurisdiction. (this is a fact-specific analysis, and you will have to look at the facts and events giving rise to each claim, if they are the same then this requirement is met).
3) Because we are in a diversity case you need to go to 1367 (b) and see whether the proposed joined will be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of 1332? (if no, then you can exercise supplemental jurisdiction, if yes (in this case the answer is yes because the amount in controversy requirement is not met) then you need to ask:
4) Is the claim one by a plaintiff against a person made a party under rule 14, 19, 20 or 24? (in your hypothetical there is only one defendant therefore this doesnt apply because no rule of joinder is triggered) If the answer is no, like in this case, you still need to ask.
5) whether the plaintiff was added to the case pursuant to either rule 19 or 24? (the answer to this it would depend on facts that you didn't provide) but assuming that the plainitffs were joined under rule 20 (permissive joinder) then they would be OK and you would be able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

*** However, even if you meet this test, the court may still decline to exercise jurisdiction at its discretion based on the factors set forth in 1367 (c).

I hope this helps!

Now I'm the one who has a question.
Do any of you know if we need to do the minimum contacts test when a D falls within the terms of a tailored-act long arm statute or do we only apply minimum contacts when we are dealing with a due process type statute.

It was my understanding that you apply minimum contacts with both, but I read a supplement that seemed to say something else, and now I am confused.

rbgrocio wrote:Now I'm the one who has a question.
Do any of you know if we need to do the minimum contacts test when a D falls within the terms of a tailored-act long arm statute or do we only apply minimum contacts when we are dealing with a due process type statute.

It was my understanding that you apply minimum contacts with both, but I read a supplement that seemed to say something else, and now I am confused.

This is the gist of what I have in my outline from jurisdiction:

There are two elements to acquiring PJ. First there must be an authorizing statute, and second jurisdiction must comply with due process of law.

Thus, an authorizing statute might authorize jurisdiction but still fail the due process prong of the analysis (i.e., minimum contacts).

For example, imagine a statute that says a defendant may be sued in State 1 if the defendant commits a tort outside of State 1 against a citizen of State 1. This is an authorizing long-arm statute, but on these simple facts (citizen of State 1 goes to State 2 and is injured by D in State 2) the PJ would not pass muster under due process of law.

So yes, I think you need to apply both elements of the test--authorizing statute + due process.

betasteve wrote:

ggocat wrote:

rbgrocio wrote:Now I'm the one who has a question.
Do any of you know if we need to do the minimum contacts test when a D falls within the terms of a tailored-act long arm statute or do we only apply minimum contacts when we are dealing with a due process type statute.

It was my understanding that you apply minimum contacts with both, but I read a supplement that seemed to say something else, and now I am confused.

This is the gist of what I have in my outline from jurisdiction:

There are two elements to acquiring PJ. First there must be an authorizing statute, and second jurisdiction must comply with due process of law.

Thus, an authorizing statute might authorize jurisdiction but still fail the due process prong of the analysis (i.e., minimum contacts).

For example, imagine a statute that says a defendant may be sued in State 1 if the defendant commits a tort outside of State 1 against a citizen of State 1. This is an authorizing long-arm statute, but on these simple facts (citizen of State 1 goes to State 2 and is injured by D in State 2) the PJ would not pass muster under due process of law.

So yes, I think you need to apply both elements of the test--authorizing statute + due process.

This. ^

Analysis under PJ should be:

1) Does the long arm apply [3 types of long arms: (1) enumerated that bring you under jx, (2) takes all jx constitutionally permissible, or (3) a hybrid] If the state doesn't have jx under (1), you've finished the problem. If the long arm is 2 or 3, you are going to have to do the minimum contacts test anyway, but on constitutional avoidance, you always hit the long arm first.
2) then constitutional due process limitations—minimum contacts, fair play, and substantial justice.

Perfect! That's what I thought but the stupid supplement threw me off. I hate supps.

Another one:

Can you do supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that are not compulsory? I have in my notes that you can only do supplemental jurisdiction when the counterclaim is of the compulsory kind, but I did not write down why.

rbgrocio wrote:Another one:

Can you do supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that are not compulsory? I have in my notes that you can only do supplemental jurisdiction when the counterclaim is of the compulsory kind, but I did not write down why.

If it is not compulsory, it is permissive and it is not related. Since it is not related to the original claim, it will not pass 1367(a).

soxfan08 wrote:

rbgrocio wrote:Another one:

Can you do supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that are not compulsory? I have in my notes that you can only do supplemental jurisdiction when the counterclaim is of the compulsory kind, but I did not write down why.

If it is not compulsory, it is permissive and it is not related. Since it is not related to the original claim, it will not pass 1367(a).

Yeah... it would not pass the common nucleus of operative facts... Thanks!

Thanks for answering all of our questions so far!

I present another:

Do punitive damages count toward the amount in controversy for subject matter jurisdiction?
Ex: Plaintiff claims $25,000 compensatory damages, and $1 million punitive damages -> amount in controversy met??

dslslave wrote:Thanks for answering all of our questions so far!

I present another:

Do punitive damages count toward the amount in controversy for subject matter jurisdiction?
Ex: Plaintiff claims $25,000 compensatory damages, and $1 million punitive damages -> amount in controversy met??

I've purged civ pro but I think you need STO before you can piggy back claims to meet the amount in controversy. Hence, if claim 1 arises from a traffic accident and claim 2 arises from a golfer forgetting to yell FORE, you won't be able to piggy back.

dslslave wrote:Thanks for answering all of our questions so far!

I present another:

Do punitive damages count toward the amount in controversy for subject matter jurisdiction?
Ex: Plaintiff claims $25,000 compensatory damages, and $1 million punitive damages -> amount in controversy met??

The amount in controversy requirement is met as long as it is shown that the amount claimed by P was claimed in good faith. So assuming that there was complete diversity and that the amount claimed was claimed in good faith (subjective +objective test presented by the court in Coventry Sewage) then jurisdiction would attach. The only thing that you cannot add to the amount in controversy is interests and costs, since under the so-called American rule each person must pay its own attorney fees.

Interesting. I've seen some sources online that say that P's alleged punitive damages do NOT count toward amount in controversy. It basically said that its a function for criminal trials, and that the plaintiff is not the one who should be deciding punitive damages. thoughts?

dslslave wrote:Interesting. I've seen some sources online that say that P's alleged punitive damages do NOT count toward amount in controversy. It basically said that its a function for criminal trials, and that the plaintiff is not the one who should be deciding punitive damages. thoughts?

It makes sense, I guess... but for my class' purposes everything counts except for interests and costs... and punitive damages are allowed in civil trials too.

Does anyone know where I can get Civ. Pro problems other than in Cali?

All damages from a well-pleaded complaint count. This includes good-faith pleadings with respect to punitive damage and, perhaps less obviously, declaratory and injunctive relief. In some jurisdictions, you can even plead attorney fees accumulated prior to filing, but that is absolutely a minority rule.

rbgrocio wrote:

dslslave wrote:Interesting. I've seen some sources online that say that P's alleged punitive damages do NOT count toward amount in controversy. It basically said that its a function for criminal trials, and that the plaintiff is not the one who should be deciding punitive damages. thoughts?

It makes sense, I guess... but for my class' purposes everything counts except for interests and costs... and punitive damages are allowed in civil trials too.

Does anyone know where I can get Civ. Pro problems other than in Cali?

Glannon has his regular E&E but also I believe a Glannon guide that focuses on MC questions. Both are extremely credited.

disco_barred wrote:

rbgrocio wrote:

dslslave wrote:Interesting. I've seen some sources online that say that P's alleged punitive damages do NOT count toward amount in controversy. It basically said that its a function for criminal trials, and that the plaintiff is not the one who should be deciding punitive damages. thoughts?

It makes sense, I guess... but for my class' purposes everything counts except for interests and costs... and punitive damages are allowed in civil trials too.

Does anyone know where I can get Civ. Pro problems other than in Cali?

Glannon has his regular E&E but also I believe a Glannon guide that focuses on MC questions. Both are extremely credited.

Ohh... my final is tomorrow! I want something I can get from the web!

dslslave wrote:Thanks for answering all of our questions so far!

I present another:

Do punitive damages count toward the amount in controversy for subject matter jurisdiction?
Ex: Plaintiff claims $25,000 compensatory damages, and $1 million punitive damages -> amount in controversy met??

My understanding is that SCOTUS in a number of cases (Statefarm v Campbell, BMW v. Gore) has indicated that punitive and compensatory damages should be 4:1, and 10:1 would be unconstitutional...so based upon your compensatory damages, you could expect to recover $100,000 in punitives and your complaint filed for $125,000 should stand up in court...in fact you could probably sue up to just under $275,000 without causing any constitutional concerns.