Supplemental Jurisdiction adding parties to suit Forum
-
RR320
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:07 pm
Supplemental Jurisdiction adding parties to suit
anyone want to explain this to me? I am confusing myself. Can plaintiff & defendant add parties to the suit?
-
The Gentleman
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:25 am
Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction adding parties to suit
Well I feel like I bombed my Civ Pro final today, so here's to redemption.
1367 permits the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over new claims (and the addition of parties) if the claim is part of the same case or controversy as the original claim. However, when the basis of subject matter jurisdiction for the original claim is 1332, 1367(b) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims made by plaintiffs against parties joined under rules 14, 19, 20 or 24.
So for example, assume A (from NY) sues B (from CA) and the sole basis for jurisdiction is 1332. B impleads his insurer C (from NY) under rule 14, because C is liable to him for part of A's claim. But let's say for shits and giggles that C is only liable for $50k, and this is stated in the rule 14 motion. B's impleader of C has no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is not met. However, 1367 gives the claim subject matter jurisdiction because it is part of the same case or controversy as A's claim against B.
But then assume that A wants to assert a state law claim against C. 1367(b) would not grant jurisdiction, because A is a plaintiff and he is asserting a claim against a party joined under rule 14.
EDIT (And there's no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over A's claim against C because they're both Knicks fans)
1367 permits the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over new claims (and the addition of parties) if the claim is part of the same case or controversy as the original claim. However, when the basis of subject matter jurisdiction for the original claim is 1332, 1367(b) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims made by plaintiffs against parties joined under rules 14, 19, 20 or 24.
So for example, assume A (from NY) sues B (from CA) and the sole basis for jurisdiction is 1332. B impleads his insurer C (from NY) under rule 14, because C is liable to him for part of A's claim. But let's say for shits and giggles that C is only liable for $50k, and this is stated in the rule 14 motion. B's impleader of C has no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is not met. However, 1367 gives the claim subject matter jurisdiction because it is part of the same case or controversy as A's claim against B.
But then assume that A wants to assert a state law claim against C. 1367(b) would not grant jurisdiction, because A is a plaintiff and he is asserting a claim against a party joined under rule 14.
EDIT (And there's no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over A's claim against C because they're both Knicks fans)
