Supplemental Jurisdiction and Complete Diversity Forum

ColtsFan88 · Post by **ColtsFan88** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:55 pm

I was under the impression that Section 1367 required complete diversity for its purposes, but while doing a practice test it seems this is mistaken. Can anyone explain this to me please?

dannynoonan87 · Post by **dannynoonan87** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:53 am

if you're in federal court because of a federal law claim (under 1331) but you also want to make a state claim that wouldn't qualify for SMJ under 1331 or 1332 on its own, you need supplemental under 1367.

1367(a) says the state law claim must arise from the same nucleus of operative fact

1367(b) tries to block claims against certain ∆'s by π's who are in court because of 1332

But if you're in court because of a federal law claim under 1331 (as I wrote in the first line) 1367(b) is completely moot and diversity is not required. so complete diversity is definitely NOT "required for its purposes"

This is the Gibbs case

SemperLegal · Post by **SemperLegal** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:05 am

D(NY) can implead D2(AZ) even if P is from AZ, because 1367(b) only prohibits Plaintiffs from asserting claims that defeat diversity. Court reads that to mean original plaintiffs, not third party plantiffs

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Complete Diversity Forum

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Complete Diversity

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction and Complete Diversity

Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction and Complete Diversity