Page 1 of 1
supplemental jurisdiction for claim against impleaded party
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:19 pm
by supersplittysplitter
Can a plaintiff bring a state law claim for less than $75k against a diverse third party defendant? I think this is an easy one because 1367(b) says a plaintiff can't bring a claim against a party joined by rule 14 if allowing jurisdiction would be inconsistent with 1332. In this case P doesn't meet the amount in controversy for the claim against the third party D so there should be no supplemental jurisdiction...
The only reason I ask is because I was reading an old outline and the person wrote the plaintiff could bring a claim against the third party D for less than $75k because Allapatah allows the P to aggregate all his claims against all parties to meet $75k.
This is completely wrong right? Allapatah only applies to multiple Ps suing a D, and has no relevance to a claim brought by a single P against a party joined by rule 14, correct?
Re: supplemental jurisdiction for claim against impleaded party
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:22 pm
by supersplittysplitter
here's a diagram:
P (NY) ------>D (VA)
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxxV
xxxxxxxxxxx T (CT)
Can P bring a state law claim against T for less than $75k?
Re: supplemental jurisdiction for claim against impleaded party
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:28 pm
by tortsandtiaras
supersplittysplitter wrote:here's a diagram:
P (NY) ------>D (VA)
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxxV
xxxxxxxxxxx T (CT)
Can P bring a state law claim against T for less than $75k?
Read the rule - 1367(b) states "the district court shall not have supplemental jurisdiction over parties claims made by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24".
Here, T was added pursuant to Rule 14. Additionally, you are saying that P is making a claim against T, again, a party added by Rule 14. Therefore, no subject matter jurisdiction.
Re: supplemental jurisdiction for claim against impleaded party
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:47 pm
by supersplittysplitter
what if T makes a claim against P and then P brings a compulsory counterclaim against T for less than $75k? would there still be no jurisdiction even though it's a compulsory counterclaim? it seems like it would be unfair to P to never allow him to bring that claim
Re: supplemental jurisdiction for claim against impleaded party
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:30 pm
by Wild Card
tortsandtiaras wrote:supersplittysplitter wrote:here's a diagram:
P (NY) ------>D (VA)
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxx I
xxxxxxxxxxxV
xxxxxxxxxxx T (CT)
Can P bring a state law claim against T for less than $75k?
Read the rule - 1367(b) states "the district court shall not have supplemental jurisdiction over parties claims made by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24".
Here, T was added pursuant to Rule 14. Additionally, you are saying that P is making a claim against T, again, a party added by Rule 14. Therefore, no subject matter jurisdiction.
"... when [it] would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332."