Top Law Schools

Lets say that P asserts a 1331 claim against D1 with a 150k amount in controversy. (I know its 1331). D1 impleades D2. P now seeks to file his own related state claim for 10k against D2. All parties are diverse. What would the jurisdiction be for P's claim against D2? Would it be 1332 because they are diverse and the ORIGINAL claim was for over 150k, or would it be 1367(a). Basically when does the original amount in controversy in the original claim relate back to any other claims? Thanks

if you already have 1331 with original defendant, i'm pretty sure you always use supplemental jurisdiction 1367(a) to attach state law claims to it (if they are sufficiently related)

The original amount in controversy would come into play if P's claim against D2 was so unrelated to the original claim that the court would not allow 1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction (I think)

My professor in is multiple choice said it would be 1332, but I'm wondering if the answer on the multiple choice he gave out is wrong

Probably because if a court has 1331 or 1332 over a claim on it's own, they probably won't even look at Supplemental Jurisdictions.

ftblryan wrote:My professor in is multiple choice said it would be 1332, but I'm wondering if the answer on the multiple choice he gave out is wrong

Forgive me for being stupid but how does Diversity Jurisdiction (1332) grant Supplemental Jurisdiction to the claim at hand? I'm almost certain that your professor is incorrect - 1367a grants jurisdiction by a Transactional test, which you state (unless I misunderstood) is satisfied here. The Plaintiff would assert the claim by 14(a)(3) but the Rules are procedural and the claim still requires Original or Supplemental jurisdiction.

If the claim was not transactionally related there would be no SuppJ, no OrigJ, and therefore the court couldn't hear the claim.

P1's claim against D2 is supported by supplemental jurisdiction based on the original 1331 claim against D1.