Top Law Schools

Question with supplemental jurisdiction:

A sues B on diversity. B impleads C. C (not diverse from A) then files a claim against P allowed by Rule 14(a)(2)(D) and permitted by supplemental jurisdiction.

From there, will supplemental jurisdiction cover A's counterclaim against C, if it would otherwise be compulsory if diversity existed? I am torn with this question because supplemental jurisdiction (section 1367) says it will not cover persons made parties under Rule 14.

If A cannot file a counterclaim against C, will A be precluded from litigating the claim later?

whatchoicetomake wrote:Question with supplemental jurisdiction:

A sues B on diversity. B impleads C. C (not diverse from A) then files a claim against P allowed by Rule 14(a)(2)(D) and permitted by supplemental jurisdiction.

From there, will supplemental jurisdiction cover A's counterclaim against C, if it would otherwise be compulsory if diversity existed? I am torn with this question because supplemental jurisdiction (section 1367) says it will not cover persons made parties under Rule 14.

If A cannot file a counterclaim against C, will A be precluded from litigating the claim later?

1) supp jx statute is the worst statute ever
2) ask your professor because there is disagreement
3) no supp jx by the plain language of 1367(b))
4) would not be precluded