Post removed... Forum

[GreenEggs]

Edit: Misread a statute so took that part out...

So I'm a bit muddled in 1367, though I think I understand it. Hoping for a Civ Pro wizard to lay down some knowledge on me.

1) Kroger case. P(CA) sues D1(NY) in federal court over diversity, D1 impleads D2(CA). D2 then files a viable claim against P, which is allowed under 1367 because the statute only refers to what plaintiffs do. However, if P were to file a compulsory counterclaim against D2 there wouldn't be SMJ under 1367.
Does this mean that both the D2's claim against P and P's compulsory counterclaim get kicked to state court? Or just the compulsory counterclaim? Or the entire case?

2) So if P wanted to keep this in federal court, and he doesn't file the compulsory counterclaim against D2. Does this mean that he can never bring this counterclaim against D2 in state court because it was compulsory and he chose not to bring it (barred by res judicata)?

**Bonus question: In 1367 when it says "plaintiff," it means only the original plaintiff and not third-party plaintiffs, but in the Rules, when it says "plaintiff," does it also only mean original plaintiff? Or does it now include third-party plaintiffs?

[GreenEggs]

Re-reading 1367(b) and thrown off by the exclusion of Rule 20 in terms of the ability for another plaintiff to enter even though it would destroy SMJ....

[rnoodles]

Re-reading 1367(b) and thrown off by the exclusion of Rule 20 in terms of the ability for another plaintiff to enter even though it would destroy SMJ....

My prof. told us to disregard this part of the statute b/c the statute was horribly written, so I crossed it out, never read it, and can't help you here.

As to question #1: The way it was explained to my class was that Kroger concerned Ancillary Jx (AJ), which is just one of the three types of supplemental jx (Pendent Claim and Pendent Party being the other two). For a compulsory counterclaim, the rule is that the counterclaim must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of opposing party's claim. In cases like Ford Credit (2004) and Moore (1926), the courts (SCOTUS in the latter) recognized the logical relationship test as satisfying that transaction standard for compulsory counterclaims. The way AJ works is if you have good SMJ for the case-in-chief (Kroger v. OPPD), you then ask if you have a logical relationship between the third-party claim AND the case-in-chief. If the logical relationship exists, you have good AJ and the case stays in fed ct. But in Kroger, which was in fed ct on diversity grounds to begin with, SCOTUS rejected this application of AJ b/c Kroger (the P) could never have originally sued Owen in the fed ct on diversity grounds. Owen and Kroger were both citizens of Iowa and non-diverse, so it'd violate the complete diversity rule.

So I think that had the diversity still been valid, and the logical relationship test satisfied, then under 1367 the D's claim and P's compulsory counterclaim would remain in federal court.

Question #2: Easy way to remember compulsory counterclaims is you either use em or lose em.

Hope this helps.

[pancakes3]

The gist of it is that 1367 lets fed courts also hear cases that they wouldn't otherwise have jx over as long as it arises under the same set of facts for a case they do have jx over - unless (b) that jx is solely founded based on diversity.

So in Kroger, P filed claim against D1, great. Diversity. Then when P filed against D2, D2 isn't diverse so there's no complete diversity. Can P use 1367? Nope, the jx that 1367 would supplement is solely based on diversity. If it was a Fed Question, P could.

[Skool]

Edit: Misread a statute so took that part out...

So I'm a bit muddled in 1367, though I think I understand it. Hoping for a Civ Pro wizard to lay down some knowledge on me.

1) Kroger case. P(CA) sues D1(NY) in federal court over diversity, D1 impleads D2(CA). D2 then files a viable claim against P, which is allowed under 1367 because the statute only refers to what plaintiffs do. However, if P were to file a compulsory counterclaim against D2 there wouldn't be SMJ under 1367.
Does this mean that both the D2's claim against P and P's compulsory counterclaim get kicked to state court? Or just the compulsory counterclaim? Or the entire case?

So in Kroger, P filed claim against D1, great. Diversity. Then when P filed against D2, D2 isn't diverse so there's no complete diversity. Can P use 1367? Nope, the jx that 1367 would supplement is solely based on diversity. If it was a Fed Question, P could.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there "a fired first exception"? Because D2 fired first with 13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim, P has the right to fire back with a 13(a) even though he's technically doing the thing he couldn't have done originally in bringing action against a non-diverse party with diversity as smj basis?

Notice that 1367(b) doesn't preclude Rule 13. It includes 14 (impleader), 19 (compulsory joinder), 20, (permissive joinder) and 24 (intervention). I understand that D2 might have been joined by D1 under 14, 19, or 20, but I think 1367 is construed to allow jurisdiction over Rule 13 joinder by Plaintiff in this scenario. I suspect it's construed in such a way just to avoid the scenario where P must bring a claim but has no court to bring it to.

So no one gets booted?