Top Law Schools

How do cross-claims interact with supplemental jurisdiction?

Is a cross-claim always good since it is against a co-party, even if the co-parties are not diverse?

I'm fairly certain that 1367 has no effect on cross-claims; 1367(a) "so related" is basically the same requirement as 13(g)'s "same transaction or occurrence." 1367(b) only applies to claims asserted by a plaintiff, not a defendant. And then you have the 4 factors under 1367(c), which will most likely not bar the defendant's cross-claim, but definitely worth mentioning.

I think the rationale is judicial efficiency and plaintiff chose the forum, thus the defendant is not subject to the same limitations.

But what if the P cross claims against another P? A P is asserting it, so would supplemental jurisdiction be allowed? Or would the P need the diversity requirements of 75k + diverse citizenship?

1367(b) is really easy to understand if you don't think about it so hard. 1367(b) precludes ANY claim by a PLAINTIFF against a party joined under the listed rules. If its by a plaintiff against one of those parties, then 1367(b) doesn't allow it. Doesn't matter if it's a cross claim, counterclaim, etc. It could even be required as a compulsory counterclaim but rejected by 1367(b) if there's no original jurisdiction.

What would you call it then if a D impleads D2, then D files a suit against D2? Is that even allowed?

heavoldgotjuice wrote:What would you call it then if a D impleads D2, then D files a suit against D2? Is that even allowed?

I would call that Rule 14.
And You should read the other thread on here.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=228518

Yes, it does cover what you want.

keep reading.