Why doesn't 1367(b) apply to Rule 20(a)? Forum

[Gettingstarted1928]

The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.

[ph14]

The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.

Doesn't the rule bar jurisdiction over claims by Ps against parties joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, as well as claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under 19 and 24? I don't see 20(a) anywhere?

[Gettingstarted1928]

The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.

Doesn't the rule bar jurisdiction over claims by Ps against parties joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, as well as claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under 19 and 24? I don't see 20(a) anywhere?

You're absolutely right. It doesn't make an exception for 20(a), but somehow it was singled out by the Court. It even says this in the E&E.

[LeDique]

Claims against Rule 20 plaintiffs are allowed.

That's why Ginsburg argues Clark and Zahn shouldn't have been overruled by Ortega/Exxon.

[Gettingstarted1928]

Claims against Rule 20 plaintiffs are allowed.

That's why Ginsburg argues Clark and Zahn shouldn't have been overruled by Ortega/Exxon.

So let me get this straight. 1367b does NOT apply to 20a1 but does apply to 20a2?

[LeDique]

the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

So yeah, claims by defendants against parties joined under rule 20 are permissible.

[Gettingstarted1928]

the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

So yeah, claims by defendants against parties joined under rule 20 are permissible.

Interesting. I guess I should pay better attention.

Thank you.

[LeDique]

But your original question is a valid one - the majority and dissent both struggle with the handling of Rule 20 in §1367(b). Ginsburg makes the better effort at reconciling it than the majority, in my opinion. It's right at the end of her opinion, if I remember it right.

[portaprokoss]

The title says it all. Rule 1367(b) specifically bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over claims brought by Ps under rule 20. But for some reason, Rule 20(a) sneaks by.

The point of supplemental jurisdiction is to allow D's to fully defend themselves if P drags them into federal court. Allowing supplemental jurisdiction for P's claims under 20(a) does not serve that purpose.

[drmguy]

Isn't it incorrect to label it as 20(a)(1) and 20(a)(2). Doesn't Exxon allow a cross claim against a defendant added under 20?

I believe you should just say that Exxon prevents claims from the orignal plaintiff against parties added under 20.