Supplemental JX question Forum
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Supplemental JX question
can someone clear this situation up for me please..
an absentee wants to bring himself into a diversity case through rule 24(a) - intervention by right. if this guy intervenes it will ruin diversity.
to grant supp jx in this situation, will the court go to through rule 19 factors for required party? or will it be rejected because it will ruin diversity
an absentee wants to bring himself into a diversity case through rule 24(a) - intervention by right. if this guy intervenes it will ruin diversity.
to grant supp jx in this situation, will the court go to through rule 19 factors for required party? or will it be rejected because it will ruin diversity
- Judge Philip Banks
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm
Re: Supplemental JX question
Rule 19 doesn't apply to your situation. If the intervenor is of right under 24(a), and they intervene on plaintiff's side to assert a state law claim, 1367(a) will be satisfied but there is no supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(b) (read the language it pretty explicitly bars supplemental jurisdiction in this situation). If they attempt to intervene as a defendant to assert a state law claim, 1367(b) won't apply (claim not by a plaintiff or someone on plaintiff side), so unless a reason to decline supplemental jx under 1367(c) applies, this claim will have supplemental jurisdiction. Seems weird, but I think this is the outcome under a plain reading of the language of 1367.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Re: Supplemental JX question
so if hes trying to intervene as a D but he is from the same state as P then he gets supp jx?
- Judge Philip Banks
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm
Re: Supplemental JX question
Just to clarify re Rule 19: an intervenor of right will satisfy 19(a)(1)(B)(i), but if the party is attempting to intervene under Rule 24, the court won't analyze under Rule 19.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Re: Supplemental JX question
and if hes trying to intervene as a P but hes from the same state as D then its outright rejection?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Judge Philip Banks
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm
Re: Supplemental JX question
If I am reading the language of 1367 correctly, then I think yes, there will be supplemental jx even if he intervenes as a D from the same state as P.ocplaytime wrote:so if hes trying to intervene as a D but he is from the same state as P then he gets supp jx?
- Judge Philip Banks
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm
Re: Supplemental JX question
Intervening as a P triggers 1367(b) (along with fact that he is asserting state law claim), and since allowing supplemental jx in that situation would be inconsistent with 1332 (no diversity), supplemental jurisdiction will be barred even though 1367(a)/Gibbs is satisfied.ocplaytime wrote:and if hes trying to intervene as a P but hes from the same state as D then its outright rejection?
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Re: Supplemental JX question
in layman terms the reasoning behind all this is basically to give an intervenor the right to come in as a D to be able to amply defend himself but won't help him out as a P since the original P is the "master of his claim" and this random has no right to come ruin his diversity case against D right
- Judge Philip Banks
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm
Re: Supplemental JX question
It is just bad statute-drafting.
- Judge Philip Banks
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm
Re: Supplemental JX question
Also, an intervenor isn't necessarily trying to defend himself. He is intervening to protect some interest of his if existing parties don't adequately protect that interest. So, an intervenor of right might choose to intervene on the defendant side so as to avoid 1367(b) issues, simply because the statute was drafted carelessly.ocplaytime wrote:in layman terms the reasoning behind all this is basically to give an intervenor the right to come in as a D to be able to amply defend himself but won't help him out as a P since the original P is the "master of his claim" and this random has no right to come ruin his diversity case against D right
- arvcondor
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:33 pm
Re: Supplemental JX question
I was under the impression that if it ruins diversity and the forum is based on diversity, there's no supp. jurisdiction, period.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login