Supplemental Jurisdiction Question Forum

[delusional]

Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?

[ph14]

Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?

Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

[delusional]

Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?

Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

[ph14]

Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?

Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

If you figure out the rest of 1367(b) let me know, i'm still confused by it but I know that much is correct at least.

[delusional]

Owen v. Kroger has a lot of discussion over the relationship between the original claim and the ancillary party. After 1367(b), is this all moot - i.e. a court never has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse party brought in under Rule 14?

Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

If you figure out the rest of 1367(b) let me know, i'm still confused by it but I know that much is correct at least.

What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.

[ph14]

Only if a plaintiff claims against them. So the court can have a supplemental jurisdictional over a non-diverse party brought in under R14 (usually will because the liability for contribution arises out of the same transaction or occurrence), P just can't sue them.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

If you figure out the rest of 1367(b) let me know, i'm still confused by it but I know that much is correct at least.

What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.

What about a cross claim against plaintiffs when one of the plaintiffs is a rule 24 intervenor and they are both from the same state, but still both are completely diverse from the defendant.

[delusional]

What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.

What about a cross claim against plaintiffs when one of the plaintiffs is a rule 24 intervenor and they are both from the same state, but still both are completely diverse from the defendant.

It doesn't include Rule 13 in the exceptions. Why should the fact that the plaintiff got there via rule 24 make a difference?

[ph14]

What specifically is not clear? It seems like all it's saying is that these supplemental jurisdiction rules don't apply when the joinder ruins (1332) diversity.

What about a cross claim against plaintiffs when one of the plaintiffs is a rule 24 intervenor and they are both from the same state, but still both are completely diverse from the defendant.

It doesn't include Rule 13 in the exceptions. Why should the fact that the plaintiff got there via rule 24 make a difference?

Includes claims by P's "proposed" to be joined under R24 though.