Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=173463
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 wrote: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.
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.ph14 wrote: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 wrote: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.
LeDique wrote:Claims against Rule 20 plaintiffs are allowed.
That's why Ginsburg argues Clark and Zahn shouldn't have been overruled by Ortega/Exxon.
So yeah, claims by defendants against parties joined under rule 20 are permissible.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.
Interesting. I guess I should pay better attention.LeDique wrote:So yeah, claims by defendants against parties joined under rule 20 are permissible.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.
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.Gettingstarted1928 wrote: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.