post all Civ Pro questions here
Mine:
I know that for supplemental jurisdiction, in diversity cases, you need common nucleus + doesn't destroy complete diversity. With third party impleaders, is there still a "doesn't destroy complete diversity" requirement? do D1 and D2 have to be diverse?
Civ Pro Questions Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
leslieknope
- Posts: 1114
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:53 pm
Re: Civ Pro Questions
When you bring in a 3rd party through FRCP 14, you don't need diversity between the third party PI and third party Def because you're just bringing someone in to pay for a valid claim. The only way an SMJ problem arises is if the original PI tries to sue the third party defendant, because you do need an independent basis for SMJ on that claim and if you're trying to assert supplemental jurisdiction, the exceptions in 1367(b) apply.
-
swtlilsoni
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am
Re: Civ Pro Questions
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.
I am having a hard time understanding what this is saying. So it seems like:
Supplemental jurisdiction over any claim arising out of common nucleus. Exceptions:
In diversity cases, claims by P against (third parties, required joint party, permissive joint party, intervening party) do not get supplemental jurisdiction
In diversity cases, claims by required joint plaintiffs or intervening plaintiffs, do not get supplemental jurisdiction.
It looks like those are the only exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction, and in all other cases, the only requirement is common nucleus?
I am having a hard time understanding what this is saying. So it seems like:
Supplemental jurisdiction over any claim arising out of common nucleus. Exceptions:
In diversity cases, claims by P against (third parties, required joint party, permissive joint party, intervening party) do not get supplemental jurisdiction
In diversity cases, claims by required joint plaintiffs or intervening plaintiffs, do not get supplemental jurisdiction.
It looks like those are the only exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction, and in all other cases, the only requirement is common nucleus?
