1367(b) question Forum

[ChattTNdt]

Could someone who knows Civ Pro help me out? I have an issue with a question/answer in the 5th edition E&E regarding 1367

Browning (NY) and Colridge (NY) join as co-plaintiffs to sue Blake (OH) and Wordsworth (OH) as co-defendants, seeking recovery for their injuries from an auto accident. Browning's claim against each is for $100,000 and Colridge's is for $25,000. Does the court have supplemental jurisdiction over Colridge's claims?

The answer says 1367(a) authorizes supp jx over Colridge's claims because they arise out of the same set of facts as Browning's, regardless of amount in controversy... and I understand that. But then it says 1367(b) bars supplemental in diversity cases over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24." Answer goes on to say that, because this is a diversity case and Black and Wordsworth are made parties under Rule 20, 1367b bars Colridge's claim.

Am I missing something important, or does this answer just ignore the operative phrase in 1367(b) "...when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332."? My understanding was that 1367(b) only bars jurisdiction when it would result in a violation of the Strawbridge complete diversity rule. help

[BarbellDreams]

Umm...I'm with you on this one. The whole point of 1367b is to prevent contamination, thats why the lack of diversity is important since that contaminates the case bu the amount in controversy is not important because who the hell cares how much money the other P wants since it doesnt change anything in the juror's eyes (no extra bias or anything).

Hope someone else can clear this up cause I understood it as I wrote above and that seems to be the same thing as you're saying so either A. Typo in supplement or B.) You and I are really screwed for finals.

[Mattalones]

You should expect supplemental jurisdiction to "be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332." There is no need to have it if you meet all of the easy requirement of § 1332 in the first place (i.e. you don't really care about supplemental jurisdiction unless you can't get diversity or federal question jurisdiction in the first place). The issue with your defendant is not domicile or citizenship, it is the amount in controversy. $25,000 is $50,000 too little for a suit to be brought on its own in federal court even if there is complete diversity. So, there is your inconsistency*.

The reason why the claim is bad has to do with the "by plantiffs" claus in § 1367(b)

In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title ...

- Good so far. This is your $100,000 claim.

... the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs ...

- i.e. your NY residents

... against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ...

- i.e. bringing in the other defendant under § 24 because it arose under the same "case or controversy"

... when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

- because it is less than the required amount in controversy of $75,000


The reason for this is to give defendants added as parties protection; give them some say as to their forum. When someone files as a plaintiff, they have a choice of federal or state. Defendants mirror that choice in most instances because they can file to remove or remand to state court. But, people added as defendants by plaintiffs get stuck in federal court and they may not want be there over state court - defendants don't want to be in any court. There is no reciprocal rule for plaintiffs being added because no one can be compelled to sue as a plaintiff like they can be as a defendant.

I hope this helps


If this were not an inconsistency, then you could conceivably have 75,000 claims for $1, or just one $75,000 claim that involved one million people who each claim less than that much in their pleadings and the court would have unqualified § 1332 jurisdiction over them all - they don't!

[ChattTNdt]

Wow, yes that helps. Thanks a lot!

The E&E definitely could have explained it more clearly (see: how you explained it)... I think my confusion resulted from a previous question that was the same except there was only one defendant, and there we clearly have supplemental jx for the guy with the $25k claim.

[Mattalones]

Wow, yes that helps. Thanks a lot!

The E&E definitely could have explained it more clearly (see: how you explained it)... I think my confusion resulted from a previous question that was the same except there was only one defendant, and there we clearly have supplemental jx for the guy with the $25k claim.

Yay! I miss Civ Pro

[weee]

Just as a bit of extra confusion, I asked my Civ Pro professor, and he said he thinks that there would be JX over coleridge's claims.

He basically said they could bring two proper suits separately against each defendant which could then be merged under rule 42, and since that is possible, it doesn't make sense for the courts to make them jump through those hoops instead of just letting them join the parties directly. However, the E&E seems to assume they were joined under rule 20, which makes the answer right in a strictly textual interpretation of the rule.

[nymario]

... against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ...

- i.e. bringing in the other defendant under § 24 because it arose under the same "case or controversy"

This must be incorrect. The original question was about adding a second plaintiff's claim (NOT a second defendant).

Both defendants were subject to diversity jurisdiction. § 1332

Neither defendant was added by § 24 -- they were both subject to the district court's jurisdiction in their own right. They were joined via § 20(2)(b). Had they not been joined, the supplemental jurisdiction would have been proper.

Now, had Browning FIRST brought individual actions against each defendant, Coleridge could have properly joined in with straightforward supplemental jurisdiction § 20(2)(a). Thereafter, the claims could be merged under Rule 42(as your prof said). Presumably, this is how the court would treat it in practice. Nevertheless, the Rule 24 analysis was not relevant to the hypo as posted.

[nymario]

I also wanted to point out that prior to 1367 - the action would have been absolutely precluded per Zahn v. Int'l Paper

The clear answer to the question is found in: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 547 (2005)

The question here is whether a diversity case in which the claims of some, but not all, plaintiffs satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement qualifies as a “civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction,” § 1367(a). Pp. 2619–2620.(c) The answer must be yes. When a well-pleaded complaint has at least one claim satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement, and there are no other relevant jurisdictional defects, the district court, beyond all question, has original jurisdiction over that claim. A court with original jurisdiction over a single claim in the complaint has original jurisdiction over a “civil action” under § 1367(a), even if that action comprises fewer claims than were included in the complaint. Once a court has original jurisdiction over the action, it can then decide whether it has a constitutional and statutory basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over other claims in the action. Section 1367(b), which contains exceptions to § 1367(a)'s broad rule, does not withdraw supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of the additional parties here. In fact, its exceptions support this Court's conclusion.

[Mattalones]

This must be incorrect. The original question was about adding a second plaintiff's claim (NOT a second defendant).

Wrong wording on my part ... the just says "party" though. So the same should apply.

[nymario]

Wrong wording on my part ... the just says "party" though. So the same should apply.

Wrong Rule too (arguably 24 could apply instead of 20 in a slightly altered hypo, nevertheless these exceptions aren't germane). In any case, I'd trust the Supreme Court over your opinion.