Impleader is very tricky to me ...
If B (Defendant) impleads C (3rd Party Defendant), and C asserts a claim against A (Plaintiff) ... (assuming it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence, and all the parties are completely diverse), what happens if C can only muster up a 30k claim against A?
1.) Would C fail because he does not meet the 75k amount in controversy?
2.) What if C's claim again A is merely a state law battery claim that arises out of the same set of facts? Does Supplemental Jurisdiction still fail him?
Thanks everyone
Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question Forum
- heavoldgotjuice
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:48 pm
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:39 pm
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
1) C could use 1367 to get SMJ
2) C would again use 1367, assuming the claim arose out of the same t/o as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction (A-->B)
2) C would again use 1367, assuming the claim arose out of the same t/o as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction (A-->B)
- lawhopeful10
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:29 pm
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
Are you sure about 1). 1367(b) says supplemental jurisdiction is not okay if it would be inconsistent with 1332. 1332 requires claims to exceed 75,000 so I would think even if they are diverse the plaintiff can't sue the implead party. I could be wrong though.1l2016 wrote:1) C could use 1367 to get SMJ
2) C would again use 1367, assuming the claim arose out of the same t/o as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction (A-->B)
This is assuming the plaintiff is suing a party brought under rule 14,19 ect.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:39 pm
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
1367(b) only precludes claims brought under 1332 by plaintiffs against parties joinded under rules 14, etc. C is a 3rd party plaintiff, and not a plaintiff, so 1367(b) wouldn't preclude it.lawhopeful10 wrote:Are you sure about 1). 1367(b) says supplemental jurisdiction is not okay if it would be inconsistent with 1332. 1332 requires claims to exceed 75,000 so I would think even if they are diverse the plaintiff can't sue the implead party. I could be wrong though.1l2016 wrote:1) C could use 1367 to get SMJ
2) C would again use 1367, assuming the claim arose out of the same t/o as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction (A-->B)
This is assuming the plaintiff is suing a party brought under rule 14,19 ect.
- lawhopeful10
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:29 pm
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
O okay reading fail on my part. That makes sense.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login