Civ Pro Confusion - Someone help me understand aggregating Forum

[Kimi]

1L here, seeing exams looming and trying not to panic. I feel pretty good (as well as I think can be expected) about property and torts, but civ pro makes my brain freeze up. Professor is not particularly receptive to questions, and I'm getting wrapped up in my own head about it. I feel like it is like math where I understand all the individual steps, but can't manage to keep them organized in my head and figure out how to apply it all.

Can anybody help me? I have the text book, the horn book, and the E&Es. Waiting to get Acing Civ Pro in the mail.

I'm currently working through my outline right now and some hypos, and for some reason I cannot grasp aggregation.

Say you've got 1 plaintiff who wants to sue for a state negligence claim in federal court against two different defendants. They are all from different states, so diversity is met, and it arises out of the same transaction, so as I understand it, the defendants can be joined under rule 20. She has $80k in damages against one, which meets the amount in controversy, but only $10k against the second. I cannot seem to grasp the concept of whether or not it is sufficient for only one party to meet the amount in controversy and "pull in" the second, or not? I feel good about joinder, but subject matter jurisdiction baffles me.

I would very much appreciate it if anyone could help my poor unhappy brain.

[goaheadualright]

I think the leading case on this is Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
which allows supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that seems to contradict the intent of 1367(b)

There would be diversity jurisdiction for the person who met the amount in controversy under 1332 & then you would turn to supplemental for this person with the $10k claim.

This decision is limited to cases where:
1. all plaintiffs are diverse from defendants (does not override the complete diversity rule)
2. at least one plaintiff has satisfied the amount in controversy requirement

[Lacepiece23]

I believe since there is only one plaintiff in this case that the plaintiff can aggregate all his claims to meet the diversity requirement so supplemental jurisdiction isn't needed.

[coldshoulder]

I believe since there is only one plaintiff in this case that the plaintiff can aggregate all his claims to meet the diversity requirement so supplemental jurisdiction isn't needed.

This. With multiple defendants that all have diversity you only need to meet the amount-in-controversy for one of them. It's a retarded rule but that's how it is.

[goaheadualright]

Thanks for posting this now I know I too need help understanding aggregate claims (/possibly reading). Good Luck!!

[Kimi]

Thank you guys so much. I knew that it was out there, but I just couldn't find it in my notes and civ pro sends me into a total freeze pretty quickly. I really appreciate it!

[maudio129]

a single P against against a single D can aggregate the value of his / her claims in order to meet the AIC requirement. For example, if Bob is suing Clara, and Bob has a 50,000 dollar tort claim, a 45,000 breach of contract claim, and a 10,000 defamation claim, Bob can aggregate the value of his claims against Clara in order to meet the AIC requirement (which in this case would be met because 105,000 exceeds the sum or value of 75,000).

However, suppose that Bob and Chad are hit by Clara's negligent driving of her car. Bob brings a 50,000 dollar personal injury claim, and Chad also brings a 50,000 dollar personal injury stemming from that same accident. Since this is a multi-party situation (P1 and P2 v. D), each D, Bob AND Chad must EACH meet the AIC requirement separately and they cannot aggregate the value of their claims (however like others have said, 1367 would likely apply, and the parties would be able to join under rule 20).