Civ Pro Aggregation Question Forum

[Mce252]

When a third party is impleaded by a defendant, any additional claims added under Rule 18 with independent jurisdiction can be aggregated with the original impleader claim, right?

Same question for crossclaims. Once a cross claim is established out of the same transaction or occurrence, are independent claims aggregated with the original crossclaim to exceed the $75,000 requirement?

[Mce252]

Anybody?

[ph14]

(1) When a third party is impleaded by a defendant, any additional claims added under Rule 18 with independent jurisdiction can be aggregated with the original impleader claim, right?

(2) Same question for crossclaims. Once a cross claim is established out of the same transaction or occurrence, are independent claims aggregated with the original crossclaim to exceed the $75,000 requirement?

(1) Rule 18(a) expressly allows a 3rd party plaintiff (ie, defendant who impleads someone under R. 14) to add on independent claims as long as he first asserts a claim complying with Rule 14. But you always need subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim, so since you said there is independent jurisdiction, it should be permitted. If you have the newest E&E, see Chapter 14, Into the Labyrinth, Example 6 (question on 276, answer on page 278-79).

(2) Once a cross-claim is established, Rule 13(g), Rule 18(a) kicks in allowing unrelated claims to be added on. Subject matter jurisdiction must be analyzed separately (E&E, Ch. 13 Sculpting the Lawsuit, page 258). So it seems you would have to analyze the independent claims separately for SMJ purposes. Since you said it is independent, and therefore it doesn't arise out of the same transaction and occurrence as the cross-claim, there is no supplemental jurisdiction. So then you would look for diversity or federal question jurisdiction. But a question I am not sure about is if multiple independent claims can be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement. Edit: This is just a guess, but I'd think if it was just against the 1 defendant, you could aggregate the independent claims to meet the amount in controversy requirement, but it must be met independent of the cross-claim. Again that is just a guess, so correct me if i'm wrong. I'm trying to find the answer to that one.

[Mce252]

Thanks. I'm thinking the claims can be aggregated because if the cross claims/impleader claims are treated like any other claim, aggregation can occur as long as its the same defendant or jointly liable defendants. I haven't seen anything that says it's not allowed.

[sundance95]

When a third party is impleaded by a defendant, any additional claims added under Rule 18 with independent jurisdiction can be aggregated with the original impleader claim, right?

Same question for crossclaims. Once a cross claim is established out of the same transaction or occurrence, are independent claims aggregated with the original crossclaim to exceed the $75,000 requirement?

I'm confused by your first question, because you would only need to aggregate to meet the 1332 requirements, and you would only need to do that if the claim was being asserted by the original plaintiff against a Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 party, or being asserted by a Rule 19 or 24 plaintiff, per 1367(b). Since your first question is predicated on a an original defendant impleading a Rule 14 third-party defendant, and that the Rule 18(a) claims have independent (which I take to mean original) jurisdiction, I'm not sure how any of those situations could be implicated by your hypothetical. The Rule 14 claim should have supplemental jurisdiction since it must be a contribution or indemnity claim, which necessarily meets the Gibbs common nucleus of operative fact standard, and if the other claims already have original jurisdiction, why would you ever need to aggregate?

As far as the cross-claim question is concerned, necessity of aggregation would only be implicated if the cross-claim is being brought by a Rule 19 or 24 plaintiff, or is being brought by the original plaintiff against a Rule 19 or 24 coparty, and the freestanding claim's original jurisdiction is based on diversity. In such a case, my understanding is that the standard aggregation rules of 1332 apply.

[Mce252]

When a third party is impleaded by a defendant, any additional claims added under Rule 18 with independent jurisdiction can be aggregated with the original impleader claim, right?

Same question for crossclaims. Once a cross claim is established out of the same transaction or occurrence, are independent claims aggregated with the original crossclaim to exceed the $75,000 requirement?

I'm confused by your first question, because you would only need to aggregate to meet the 1332 requirements, and you would only need to do that if the claim was being asserted by the original plaintiff against a Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 party, or being asserted by a Rule 19 or 24 plaintiff, per 1367(b). Since your first question is predicated on a an original defendant impleading a Rule 14 third-party defendant, and that the Rule 18(a) claims have independent (which I take to mean original) jurisdiction, I'm not sure how any of those situations could be implicated by your hypothetical. The Rule 14 claim should have supplemental jurisdiction since it must be a contribution or indemnity claim, which necessarily meets the Gibbs common nucleus of operative fact standard, and if the other claims already have original jurisdiction, why would you ever need to aggregate?

As far as the cross-claim question is concerned, necessity of aggregation would only be implicated if the cross-claim is being brought by a Rule 19 or 24 plaintiff, or is being brought by the original plaintiff against a Rule 19 or 24 coparty, and the freestanding claim's original jurisdiction is based on diversity. In such a case, my understanding is that the standard aggregation rules of 1332 apply.

I'll try to make my question clearer. Plaintiff, A, sues B. B impleads C (for a $90,000 claim). When B tries to now bring in a completely seperate claim against C, not of the same transaction or occurrence, for $25,000, with diversity met, can he aggregate the original $90,000 third party claim and the new $25,000 claim to establish jurisdiction?

[ph14]

When a third party is impleaded by a defendant, any additional claims added under Rule 18 with independent jurisdiction can be aggregated with the original impleader claim, right?

Same question for crossclaims. Once a cross claim is established out of the same transaction or occurrence, are independent claims aggregated with the original crossclaim to exceed the $75,000 requirement?

I'm confused by your first question, because you would only need to aggregate to meet the 1332 requirements, and you would only need to do that if the claim was being asserted by the original plaintiff against a Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 party, or being asserted by a Rule 19 or 24 plaintiff, per 1367(b). Since your first question is predicated on a an original defendant impleading a Rule 14 third-party defendant, and that the Rule 18(a) claims have independent (which I take to mean original) jurisdiction, I'm not sure how any of those situations could be implicated by your hypothetical. The Rule 14 claim should have supplemental jurisdiction since it must be a contribution or indemnity claim, which necessarily meets the Gibbs common nucleus of operative fact standard, and if the other claims already have original jurisdiction, why would you ever need to aggregate?

As far as the cross-claim question is concerned, necessity of aggregation would only be implicated if the cross-claim is being brought by a Rule 19 or 24 plaintiff, or is being brought by the original plaintiff against a Rule 19 or 24 coparty, and the freestanding claim's original jurisdiction is based on diversity. In such a case, my understanding is that the standard aggregation rules of 1332 apply.

I'll try to make my question clearer. Plaintiff, A, sues B. B impleads C (for a $90,000 claim). When B tries to now bring in a completely seperate claim, not of the same transaction or occurrence, for $25,000, with diversity met, can he aggregate the original $90,000 third party claim and the new $25,000 claim to establish jurisdiction?

I think the court still needs subject matter jurisdiction over the completely separately claim. If it was the same transaction or occurrence then it would be supplemental jurisdiction, but since it is not, I think you still need to meet the > $75,000 in controversy requirement. I think the E&E has a question or two on this if you have it, in the joinder power/permission chapter.

[Mce252]

Yes, I understand the requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. My question is whether aggregation allows us to get there. In a normal hypo if A sues B for two claims, we know that we can add the two claims together to exceed $75,000. My question is whether the same application occurs when one of the claims is an indemnity claim.

[ph14]

Yes, I understand the requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. My question is whether aggregation allows us to get there. In a normal hypo if A sues B for two claims, we know that we can add the two claims together to exceed $75,000. My question is whether the same application occurs when one of the claims is an indemnity claim.

What i'm saying is I think the court needs independent SMJ over the new claim, i.e., they can't aggregate that claim with the original indemnity claim (unless it is arising out of the same transaction or occurrence).

[Mce252]

they can't aggregate that claim with the original indemnity claim (unless it is arising out of the same transaction or occurrence)..

I don't think arising out of the same t/o has anything to do with aggregation, only supplemental jurisdiction. When aggregation is allowed in any other claim, it is considered to be "independent" SMJ jurisdiction over both claims, even though neither of them alone meets the $75,000 requirement.

The same problem arises with cross claims that are governed by supplemental jurisdiction. I'm thinking that an additional claim could establish indepedent smj, as long as there was diversity and together the two claims exceeded $75,000.

You may very well be right. I just don't see anything that cleary shows they can't be aggregated.

[ph14]

they can't aggregate that claim with the original indemnity claim (unless it is arising out of the same transaction or occurrence)..

I don't think arising out of the same t/o has anything to do with aggregation, only supplemental jurisdiction. When aggregation is allowed in any other claim, it is considered to be "independent" SMJ jurisdiction over both claims, even though neither of them alone meets the $75,000 requirement.

The same problem arises with cross claims that are governed by supplemental jurisdiction. I'm thinking that an additional claim could establish indepedent smj, as long as there was diversity and together the two claims exceeded $75,000.

You may very well be right. I just don't see anything that cleary shows they can't be aggregated.

Ugh lol, I can't find a clear answer on your question. Hopefully someone can come in and point us to an answer.

[Mce252]

Yeah, I've been looking for a while. It's one of those things that probably not going to come up on the exam, but I can't stop looking anyway.

[sundance95]

I see your question now; the 18(a) claim doesn't qualify for supplemental.

A single plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against a single defendant, whether or not the claims are related. Even though you are asking this in the context of a crossclaim or counterclaim, the same principle holds. Think of the crossclaiming or counterclaiming party as the cross/counterclaim plaintiff. If that cross/counterclaim plaintiff asserts multiple claims against a single cross/counterclaim defendant, the claims may be aggregated. FWIW, my prof has gone over this situation multiple times in class to make this point.

[ph14]

I see your question now; the 18(a) claim doesn't qualify for supplemental.

A single plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against a single defendant, whether or not the claims are related. Even though you are asking this in the context of a crossclaim or counterclaim, the same principle holds. Think of the crossclaiming or counterclaiming party as the cross/counterclaim plaintiff. If that cross/counterclaim plaintiff asserts multiple claims against a single cross/counterclaim defendant, the claims may be aggregated. FWIW, my prof has gone over this situation multiple times in class to make this point.

They can be aggregated according to the FRCP, but is there Constitutional permission to do so? He's asking in the context of a valid cross-claim already asserted, but the 3rd party plaintiff wants to add an unrelated, independent claim under 18(a) to the cross-claim on the basis of diversity, but the claim alone does not meet the amount in controversy. Can you add that the already validly asserted cross-claim to the independent claim to meet the amount-in-controversy?

[sundance95]

This is a flowchart I made from our lectures on supplemental jdx, and you can see that my prof has emphasized that before you go from the 1367(a) analysis to 1367(b) analysis, you should always first check to see if the claim can be aggregated to have independent diversity jdx. (Sorry, I know it's a little small but I'm not sure how to resize. Its weird b/c its a full page in my OneNote screen.)

[ph14]

This is a flowchart I made from our lectures on supplemental jdx, and you can see that my prof has emphasized that before you go from the 1367(a) analysis to 1367(b) analysis, you should always first check to see if the claim can be aggregated to have independent diversity jdx. (Sorry, I know it's a little small but I'm not sure how to resize. Its weird b/c its a full page in my OneNote screen.)

Can't read it.

[sundance95]

I see your question now; the 18(a) claim doesn't qualify for supplemental.

A single plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against a single defendant, whether or not the claims are related. Even though you are asking this in the context of a crossclaim or counterclaim, the same principle holds. Think of the crossclaiming or counterclaiming party as the cross/counterclaim plaintiff. If that cross/counterclaim plaintiff asserts multiple claims against a single cross/counterclaim defendant, the claims may be aggregated. FWIW, my prof has gone over this situation multiple times in class to make this point.

They can be aggregated according to the FRCP, but is there Constitutional permission to do so? He's asking in the context of a valid cross-claim already asserted, but the 3rd party plaintiff wants to add an unrelated, independent claim under 18(a) to the cross-claim on the basis of diversity, but the claim alone does not meet the amount in controversy. Can you add that the already validly asserted cross-claim to the independent claim to meet the amount-in-controversy?

Now I'm confused. Is this a 13(g) crossclaim or a Rule 14 impleader? Either way, I'm not sure how its a constitutional issue; diversity is clearly a constitutional basis for federal jurisdiction, and at any rate the aggregation rules are judicially construed from 1332. And, either way, you look at the aggregation rules as if the claim were a separate action, and a single P can aggregate multiple claims from a single D.

[sundance95]

This is a flowchart I made from our lectures on supplemental jdx, and you can see that my prof has emphasized that before you go from the 1367(a) analysis to 1367(b) analysis, you should always first check to see if the claim can be aggregated to have independent diversity jdx. (Sorry, I know it's a little small but I'm not sure how to resize. Its weird b/c its a full page in my OneNote screen.)

[pic]

Can't read it.

bleh-try downloading it?

[ph14]

This is a flowchart I made from our lectures on supplemental jdx, and you can see that my prof has emphasized that before you go from the 1367(a) analysis to 1367(b) analysis, you should always first check to see if the claim can be aggregated to have independent diversity jdx. (Sorry, I know it's a little small but I'm not sure how to resize. Its weird b/c its a full page in my OneNote screen.)

[pic]

Can't read it.

bleh-try downloading it?

I did, it's too blurry to read when I zoom in.

[sundance95]

I'll just write it out. The third white box, which comes just before conducting the 1367(b) analysis, says:

Briefly check to see if claims can be aggregated to meet amount in controversy requirement. If yes, diversity (not supp.) JDX exists. If no, say so on exam.

[ph14]

I see your question now; the 18(a) claim doesn't qualify for supplemental.

A single plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against a single defendant, whether or not the claims are related. Even though you are asking this in the context of a crossclaim or counterclaim, the same principle holds. Think of the crossclaiming or counterclaiming party as the cross/counterclaim plaintiff. If that cross/counterclaim plaintiff asserts multiple claims against a single cross/counterclaim defendant, the claims may be aggregated. FWIW, my prof has gone over this situation multiple times in class to make this point.

They can be aggregated according to the FRCP, but is there Constitutional permission to do so? He's asking in the context of a valid cross-claim already asserted, but the 3rd party plaintiff wants to add an unrelated, independent claim under 18(a) to the cross-claim on the basis of diversity, but the claim alone does not meet the amount in controversy. Can you add that the already validly asserted cross-claim to the independent claim to meet the amount-in-controversy?

Now I'm confused. Is this a 13(g) crossclaim or a Rule 14 impleader? Either way, I'm not sure how its a constitutional issue; diversity is clearly a constitutional basis for federal jurisdiction, and at any rate the aggregation rules are judicially construed from 1332. And, either way, you look at the aggregation rules as if the claim were a separate action, and a single P can aggregate multiple claims from a single D.

Diversity requires the meeting of the amount in controversy though. Under either 13(g) or 14 you need to assert a valid claim before you can join claims, right? So the question is after a valid claim has been asserted, and a 3rd party P wants to add in independent claims under 18(a), can they add in the amount of their valid 13(g) or 14 claim with the independent 18(a) claim?

So something like this:
3rd party P ----> 3rd party D
-complete diversity
-valid cross-claim for $50,000 (cross-claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, so it has supplemental jurisdiction, right?)
-independent claim for $30,000 (must analyze separate, right? could you add the 2 claims together and then say that is valid? or does the independent claim need to meet the amount in controversy?)

And I guess a 2nd question would be:
3rd party P ----> 3rd party D
-valid cross-claim for $50,000
-complete diversity
-independent claim for $40,000
-another independent claim for $40,000

So in this scenario, I think you would be able to join the 2 independent claims together, and then have diversity jurisdiction for those 2 claims? So this scenario seems a bit easier than the 1st?

[sundance95]

Okay, couple of things-first, those claims you are describing aren't actually crossclaims-they are third party claims or impleader claims, which I think was confusing me. If your prof is using that terminology though, obviously disregard that point.

Can 18(a) claims be aggregated with the valid 13(g) crossclaim the 18(a) claim is piggybacking on to meet the amount in controversy requirement? As long as those claims originate from a single crossclaim plaintiff against a single crossclaim defendant, yes.

The same is true of any type of party joinder. Rule 14 impleader, 13(a) compulsory counterclaim, 13(b) permissive counterclaim, or whatever. The Rule that permits or requires the joinder of the claim or party is irrelevant: so long as all of the claims to be aggregated are raised by a single party against another single party, aggregation is permitted.

We aren't studying the rules about necessary v. indispensable Rule 19 parties in my course, but if you are, note that if an indispensable party must be joined to such a claim it would kill your aggregation, and thus your amount in controversy, and thus your subject matter JDX, and then all of the claims we are talking about would have to be dismissed (although I don't think the original action would).

[ph14]

Okay, couple of things-first, those claims you are describing aren't actually crossclaims-they are third party claims or impleader claims, which I think was confusing me. If your prof is using that terminology though, obviously disregard that point.

Can 18(a) claims be aggregated with the valid 13(g) crossclaim the 18(a) claim is piggybacking on to meet the amount in controversy requirement? As long as those claims originate from a single crossclaim plaintiff against a single crossclaim defendant, yes.

The same is true of any type of party joinder. Rule 14 impleader, 13(a) compulsory counterclaim, 13(b) permissive counterclaim, or whatever. The Rule that permits or requires the joinder of the claim or party is irrelevant: so long as all of the claims to be aggregated are raised by a single party against another single party, aggregation is permitted.

We aren't studying the rules about necessary v. indispensable Rule 19 parties in my course, but if you are, note that if an indispensable party must be joined to such a claim it would kill your aggregation, and thus your amount in controversy, and thus your subject matter JDX, and then all of the claims we are talking about would have to be dismissed (although I don't think the original action would).

Why aren't they crossclaims?

[sundance95]

Crossclaims only refers to Rule 13(g) claims. It helps if you diagram:



A v. B & C

If A has brought suit against both B and C under Rule 20(a), then B and C are coparties. If B then brings a claim against C, that is a crossclaim, and is permitted only if the claim complies with Rule 13(g).

Compare to Rule 14.


A v. B

A has brought suit only against B. But if B thinks that if he found is liable to A, then C [who is not yet a party] would be liable to B under a contribution or indemnity claim, then B can implead C into the action as a third party defendant via Rule 14. Then the action looks like this:

A v. B v. C

[ph14]

Crossclaims only refers to Rule 13(g) claims. It helps if you diagram:



A v. B & C

If A has brought suit against both B and C under Rule 20(a), then B and C are coparties. If B then brings a claim against C, that is a crossclaim, and is permitted only if the claim complies with Rule 13(g).

Compare to Rule 14.


A v. B

A has brought suit only against B. But if B thinks that if he found is liable to A, then C [who is not yet a party] would be liable to B under a contribution or indemnity claim, then B can implead C into the action as a third party defendant via Rule 14. Then the action looks like this:

A v. B v. C

Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying. So what's the terminology then for B v. C in the indemnity example, indemnity claim by B against C & counter-claim by C against B?