xx Forum

[CivPro2isFun]

xxx

[canesfan1986]

Here's my exam-style answer to your question. I'm pretty sure it's right, but feel free to disagree; I have this exam tomorrow morning.

The joinder of Z under Rule 14 should be allowed because the claim falls within the supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts (§ 1367).

§ 1367(a) says that "the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. . . ." "Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties." § 1367(a) provides that this is the law, subject to the exceptions in subsections (b) and (c). In this case, we only need to look at (b).

(b) says that "In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on § 1332 of this title . . . shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by PLAINTIFFS against persons made parties under . . . when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332."

This case clearly seems to arise from the "same case or controversy" as the original suit from X against Y. Y is claiming that if he is liable, then Z must indemnify him. For purposes of subsection (b), the Plaintiff is considered the person named as plaintiff in the suit. In this case, X is the named plaintiff. Y is a third-party plaintiff. If X tried to bring in Z, § 1367(b) would apply, and this suit would not be allowed. But § 1367 extends the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts to the maximum extent allowable, and the Strawbridge v. Curtis requirement of complete diversity does not apply; so long as there is at least one party diverse from the other on each side, i.e. X diverse from Y or Z, then § 1367 gives the court subject-matter jurisdiction over Y's claim against Z.

Therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Y's claim against Z.

[canesfan1986]

Oh and as for #2, a compulsory counterclaim is just that: compulsory. You either bring it or you lose it. It does NOT have to satisfy the $75k requirement, and presumably there will always be either diversity or a federal question in the case. Independent satisfaction of SMJ does not apply to compulsory counterclaims.

I just re-read your question. Check § 1367(c)(3). If the counterclaim does not by itself satisfy the SMJ, then it seems like it will get dismissed based on that rule. If the basis for the Court's jurisdiction is no longer there, then the new ∆ (old π) could file a MTD for lack of SMJ and it should be granted.

[3|ink]

If the original claim is:

x ----> y

Then Y counterclaims from the same transaction or occurence (compulsory - 13(a)):

y ----> x

But in the original claim of x-->y, Y impleads Z (CA), a non-diverse party from X (CA)

1. Because X and Z are not diverse, is diversity destroyed and therefore no SMJ? I argued yes, someone else argued no.
2. If SMJ is destroyed in the first suit, does the question of whether the compulsory counterclaim stays in federal court depend on whether there is an independent basis for jurisdiction, thus if the counterclaim didn't rely on 1367, it will be able to stay in federal court notwithstanding the original claim being dismissed for lack of SMJ?

Thanks.

This has probably been answered already, but I'm pretty sure a defendant can't unilaterally destroy diversity. Otherwise, they'd do it all the time.

[NonTradHealthLaw]

Impleader rules for supplemental jurisdiction only apply to claims by plaintiffs. X (the plaintiff) couldn't bring a claim against Z as this would contravene his supplemental jurisdiction requirements, but Y didn't choose to bring the case, and therefore doesn't have to play by the same rules.

Hope that makes some sense after post-contracts exam boozing.