Top Law Schools

I realize that a P can aggregate claims against a D to meet the >75k requirement, even if they are unrelated. I know this also complies with Rule 18. However, if the claims are unrelated, how would they ever get in? Doesn't 1367 require relatedness between these claims?

uzpakalis wrote:I realize that a P can aggregate claims against a D to meet the >75k requirement, even if they are unrelated. I know this also complies with Rule 18. However, if the claims are unrelated, how would they ever get in? Doesn't 1367 require relatedness between these claims?

1367 doesn't apply here because under section (a), the claim that is getting added to has to have SMJ (based on 1331/1332).

I'm confused. Suppose A brings a claim against B for 50k under 1332. Then adds 3 more unrelated claims, each for 10k. Now the total is 80k, but doesn't the court need to be able to assert SMJ over those three additional claims by using 1367?

uzpakalis wrote:I'm confused. Suppose A brings a claim against B for 50k under 1332. Then adds 3 more unrelated claims, each for 10k. Now the total is 80k, but doesn't the court need to be able to assert SMJ over those three additional claims by using 1367?

Courts allow unrelated claims to aggregate to satisfy the 75k+ requirement (Jones Motor v Teledyne) to satisfy 1332 (diversity + AIC).

1367 is for supplemental jurisdiction to a claim that ALREADY has SMJ. So it won't even apply to your scenario.