Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367 section b Forum

[Charles Barkley]

I'm doing a little bit of review for Civ Pro and have a quick question. If the courts original basis for SMJ is diversity, can a plaintiff never get supplemental jurisdiction over the defendant that is impleaded into the case, even if doing so wouldn't ruin diversity?

For instance, if Browning (New York) is suing Blake (Ohio), and Blake impleads Wordsworth (Ohio), could Browning assert a claim against Wordsworth?

I thought yes, because doing so would not ruin diversity. However, in the Glannon E&E he says no.

Kinda confused, halp.

Thanks.

[Nom Sawyer]

I'm doing a little bit of review for Civ Pro and have a quick question. If the courts original basis for SMJ is diversity, can a plaintiff never get supplemental jurisdiction over the defendant that is impleaded into the case, even if doing so wouldn't ruin diversity?

For instance, if Browning (New York) is suing Blake (Ohio), and Blake impleads Wordsworth (Ohio), could Browning assert a claim against Wordsworth?

I thought yes, because doing so would not ruin diversity. However, in the Glannon E&E he says no.

Kinda confused, halp.

Thanks.

Browning can ONLY assert a claim against Wordsworth if he has Original Jurisdiction over him... Thus if on that claim he has either a FQ or Diversity + AIC then he could assert a claim...

however as 1367 b bars supplemental jurisdiction BY plaintiffs AGAINST impleaded parties, if AIC was <$75,001 then he could not assert a claim even if there was T & O.

[Charles Barkley]

Thanks. I was totally taking for granted the AIC as it relates to 1367 B.

[SeymourShowz]

The dumbest part about 1367b, it seems to me, is that it disallows SJ over a claim by a party that intervenes under rule 24, but allows for SJ over a party that joins under rule 20. That just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Is there some policy reason that I'm missing?

[Merr]

The dumbest part about 1367b, it seems to me, is that it disallows SJ over a claim by a party that intervenes under rule 24, but allows for SJ over a party that joins under rule 20. That just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Is there some policy reason that I'm missing?

I think 1367 b does not allow claims by P against persons made parties by rules 14,19,20,24 where they basis is solely 1332 diversity. Thus it wouldn't allow for Ps (other then persons proposed to be joined as Ps) to get SJ over a party that joins under rule 20 assuming we are dealing with a diversity based claim.

[Woozy]

I think the E&E has not been updated since 2005. There should be supplemental jurisdiction as long as the original claim has more than $75k in controversy:

"We hold that, where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, §1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount specified in the statute setting forth the requirements for diversity jurisdiction."

-Exxon v. Allapattah (2005)

EDIT: yeah, I'm wrong. Exxon is only for plaintiffs who do not meet the $75k. I did not read your question carefully enough.

[Tangerine Gleam]

The E&E talks about Exxon in the SuppJ chapter. I think it was updated last year or in 2008.

[Clearly]

Bump lol

[Brian_Wildcat]

The dumbest part about 1367b, it seems to me, is that it disallows SJ over a claim by a party that intervenes under rule 24, but allows for SJ over a party that joins under rule 20. That just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Is there some policy reason that I'm missing?

I think 1367 b does not allow claims by P against persons made parties by rules 14,19,20,24 where they basis is solely 1332 diversity. Thus it wouldn't allow for Ps (other then persons proposed to be joined as Ps) to get SJ over a party that joins under rule 20 assuming we are dealing with a diversity based claim.

You are reading it wrong. (I am typing this on my iPhone so excuse any grammatical mistakes). 1367b does not allow a person who is already a plaintiff to bring a claim against a defendant who was joined ubder 20. On the other hand, 1367b would allow a person proposed to be a plaintiff under rule 20 to bring a claim. However, that is where the Exxon case comes in. The party doesn't have to be completely diverse but has to meet the statutory amount. Apparently forgetting rule 20 in that second part of the rule was a typo/mistake.

[Clearly]

The dumbest part about 1367b, it seems to me, is that it disallows SJ over a claim by a party that intervenes under rule 24, but allows for SJ over a party that joins under rule 20. That just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Is there some policy reason that I'm missing?

I think 1367 b does not allow claims by P against persons made parties by rules 14,19,20,24 where they basis is solely 1332 diversity. Thus it wouldn't allow for Ps (other then persons proposed to be joined as Ps) to get SJ over a party that joins under rule 20 assuming we are dealing with a diversity based claim.

You are reading it wrong. (I am typing this on my iPhone so excuse any grammatical mistakes). 1367b does not allow a person who is already a plaintiff to bring a claim against a defendant who was joined ubder 20. On the other hand, 1367b would allow a person proposed to be a plaintiff under rule 20 to bring a claim. However, that is where the Exxon case comes in. The party doesn't have to be completely diverse but has to meet the statutory amount. Apparently forgetting rule 20 in that second part of the rule was a typo/mistake.

Other way around, doesn't have to meet the AIC, but does have to be completely diverse.