Top Law Schools

Like many others, I have a Civ Pro final tomorrow and on my practice test I just came across an issue that I'm not sure about. Hopefully someone can point me in the right direction

Ok,

A is from CA
B is from NV
C is from CA


Say A (plaintiff) sues B (defendant) in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and B impleads C as a third-party defendant for indemnity.

Does the court still have subject matter jurisdiction over B's action against C? I figured it wouldn't because I thought that would destroy the complete diversity required for diversity jurisdiction since both A and C are from CA. But the sample answer indicates otherwise. Would the court still have subject matter jurisdiction over the whole thing as long as there are no claims or counterclaims between A and C? (assume there is no federal question jx)

Court has supplemental jurisdiction because separating the cases would conflict with efficiency ends of the court. The test is whether it arises from the same case or controversy. This is basically the same as the same "transaction of occurrence" in rule 14 for impleader.

There are technically different types of supplemental jurisdiction (pendant, ancillary) but my understanding is its basically the same at this point.

It would be fine as long as it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence.

1367 is the supplemental jurisdiction, now keep it in mind that unlike normal subject matter jurisdiction, supplemental is discretionary. 1367(c) lists the factors for discretion.

So P-->D--->D

Now, P likely would not be able to sue the 3rd D. 1367(b) gives a couple of rules that are barred from it, but that only applies to P, not D.

Agreed. C doesn't ruin A and B's diversity. A and B have diversity, so they're good.

B's claim against C, if related to the claim between A and B is allowed under 13679(a).

I had this same question, and my CP professor told me each new claim needs its own subject matter jurisdiction. 1367A gives it, if related, for this claim.