Page 1 of 1
Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:21 pm
by heavoldgotjuice
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
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:32 pm
by 1l2016
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)
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:52 pm
by lawhopeful10
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)
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.
This is assuming the plaintiff is suing a party brought under rule 14,19 ect.
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:56 pm
by 1l2016
lawhopeful10 wrote: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)
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.
This is assuming the plaintiff is suing a party brought under rule 14,19 ect.
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.
Re: Impleader + Supplemental Jurisdiction Question
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:59 pm
by lawhopeful10
O okay reading fail on my part. That makes sense.