Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=173215
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 wrote: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?
Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.ph14 wrote: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 wrote: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?
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 wrote:Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.ph14 wrote: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 wrote: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?
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 wrote: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 wrote:Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.ph14 wrote: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 wrote: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?
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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks.ph14 wrote:
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.
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 wrote: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 wrote: 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.
Includes claims by P's "proposed" to be joined under R24 though.delusional wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: 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.