Top Law Schools

1367 (a) says that federal district courts may have supplemental jurisdiction over any claims RELATED to those in which they have original jurisdiction (so a federal question claim/diversity claim). The second claim has to be related to the original claim. That being said, why is it that a plaintiff in a diversity case can sue a defendant for a claim for say 60k, and then aggregate a claim UNRELATED to that claim for like 40k to meet the amount in controversy requirement? Doesn't this contradict 1367 (a)?

No. If the plaintiff is aggregating his claims against a single defendant, then there's no problem with diversity, so it's not supplemental jurisdiction. 1367 only comes into play when you're talking about adding claims that the court ordinarily couldn't exercise jurisdiction over.

zilladilla wrote:1367 (a) says that federal district courts may have supplemental jurisdiction over any claims RELATED to those in which they have original jurisdiction (so a federal question claim/diversity claim). The second claim has to be related to the original claim. That being said, why is it that a plaintiff in a diversity case can sue a defendant for a claim for say 60k, and then aggregate a claim UNRELATED to that claim for like 40k to meet the amount in controversy requirement? Doesn't this contradict 1367 (a)?

1367 is only for supplemental jurisdiction. The court may have "supplemental jurisdiction".

It's not talking about the usual subject matter jurisdiction.

Supplemental jurisdiction is when one claim that doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction "tags along" to one that does.

In your example, there would just be usual subject-matter jurisdiction because it's one P and one D, so claims can all be aggregated to meet the > $75K requirement for 1332(a) jurisdiction. So you're good there. No need to use 1367 at all. Bonus: You can bring multiple unrelated claims to same D because of Rule 18.

Example of supplemental: State claim tagging along with Federal Q/1331 claim, or a claim that destroys complete diversity being added to a currently diverse/OK claim.

ahhhh i see now, thanks guys

zilladilla wrote:1367 (a) says that federal district courts may have supplemental jurisdiction over any claims RELATED to those in which they have original jurisdiction (so a federal question claim/diversity claim). The second claim has to be related to the original claim. That being said, why is it that a plaintiff in a diversity case can sue a defendant for a claim for say 60k, and then aggregate a claim UNRELATED to that claim for like 40k to meet the amount in controversy requirement? Doesn't this contradict 1367 (a)?

Hey Guys,

I have a question! As I am a foreign lawyer it is a bit confusing for me I would appreciate any help. So in the UK we said " submits to the exclusive jurisdiction in England and Wales' . I have started with Federal Jurisdiction and I got very confused when I came to the venue part. When we talk about personal jurisdiction are we talking about which state has jurisdiction over the parties?

So If state x has jurisdiction wouldnt venue have to be in state x too?

Banana1 wrote: Hey Guys,

I have a question! As I am a foreign lawyer it is a bit confusing for me I would appreciate any help. So in the UK we said " submits to the exclusive jurisdiction in England and Wales' . I have started with Federal Jurisdiction and I got very confused when I came to the venue part. When we talk about personal jurisdiction are we talking about which state has jurisdiction over the parties?

So If state x has jurisdiction wouldnt venue have to be in state x too?

Venue is totally different than either personal or subject matter jurisdiction (although there are minor points of crossover). Don't get confused by blending those together.

cavalier1138 wrote:

Banana1 wrote: Hey Guys,

I have a question! As I am a foreign lawyer it is a bit confusing for me I would appreciate any help. So in the UK we said " submits to the exclusive jurisdiction in England and Wales' . I have started with Federal Jurisdiction and I got very confused when I came to the venue part. When we talk about personal jurisdiction are we talking about which state has jurisdiction over the parties?

So If state x has jurisdiction wouldnt venue have to be in state x too?

Venue is totally different than either personal or subject matter jurisdiction (although there are minor points of crossover). Don't get confused by blending those together.

Thanks for the reply! How different ? I thought it might be asked in the same question thats why I was confused..

Banana1 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

Banana1 wrote: Hey Guys,

I have a question! As I am a foreign lawyer it is a bit confusing for me I would appreciate any help. So in the UK we said " submits to the exclusive jurisdiction in England and Wales' . I have started with Federal Jurisdiction and I got very confused when I came to the venue part. When we talk about personal jurisdiction are we talking about which state has jurisdiction over the parties?

So If state x has jurisdiction wouldnt venue have to be in state x too?

Venue is totally different than either personal or subject matter jurisdiction (although there are minor points of crossover). Don't get confused by blending those together.

Thanks for the reply! How different ? I thought it might be asked in the same question thats why I was confused..

Totally different. Different statutes, different standards. An exam question could easily have a scenario that raises questions of jurisdiction and venue, but that's a trap designed to trick students into giving an answer that doesn't distinguish between the issues.

cavalier1138 wrote:

Banana1 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

Banana1 wrote: Hey Guys,

I have a question! As I am a foreign lawyer it is a bit confusing for me I would appreciate any help. So in the UK we said " submits to the exclusive jurisdiction in England and Wales' . I have started with Federal Jurisdiction and I got very confused when I came to the venue part. When we talk about personal jurisdiction are we talking about which state has jurisdiction over the parties?

So If state x has jurisdiction wouldnt venue have to be in state x too?

Venue is totally different than either personal or subject matter jurisdiction (although there are minor points of crossover). Don't get confused by blending those together.

Thanks for the reply! How different ? I thought it might be asked in the same question thats why I was confused..

Totally different. Different statutes, different standards. An exam question could easily have a scenario that raises questions of jurisdiction and venue, but that's a trap designed to trick students into giving an answer that doesn't distinguish between the issues.

I can see that they are different but I thought you couldnt establish venue without establishing personal jurisdiction? so there are different tests to satisfy both and different standards yes. but
A state can establish PJ over a defendant, the question then becomes what court within that state can the case be heard isnt this correct?

it doesnt make sense for lets say Alabama to have personal jurisdiction and venue to be in Nevada?

Banana1 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

Banana1 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

Banana1 wrote: Hey Guys,

I have a question! As I am a foreign lawyer it is a bit confusing for me I would appreciate any help. So in the UK we said " submits to the exclusive jurisdiction in England and Wales' . I have started with Federal Jurisdiction and I got very confused when I came to the venue part. When we talk about personal jurisdiction are we talking about which state has jurisdiction over the parties?

So If state x has jurisdiction wouldnt venue have to be in state x too?

Venue is totally different than either personal or subject matter jurisdiction (although there are minor points of crossover). Don't get confused by blending those together.

Thanks for the reply! How different ? I thought it might be asked in the same question thats why I was confused..

Totally different. Different statutes, different standards. An exam question could easily have a scenario that raises questions of jurisdiction and venue, but that's a trap designed to trick students into giving an answer that doesn't distinguish between the issues.

I can see that they are different but I thought you couldnt establish venue without establishing personal jurisdiction? so there are different tests to satisfy both and different standards yes. but
A state can establish PJ over a defendant, the question then becomes what court within that state can the case be heard isnt this correct?

it doesnt make sense for lets say Alabama to have personal jurisdiction and venue to be in Nevada?

Again, you can't blend these issues. Yes, a federal court (not a state court because those are different rules) usually needs to have personal jurisdiction over a case in order to have venue (since venue can be waived, that's not always true). But multiple courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over one case. And you should have encountered multiple examples of a case being moved between states in your classes.

Read 1391. Then read 1404. They're actually relatively clear compared to other procedural statutes.