P1 sues D: Claim 1 (fed question); Claim 2 (state/supp. jx)
Claims 1 and 2 share common nucleus of operative facts/arose from the same transaction and occurrence.
P2 wants to join, but only for Claim 2, because she cannot bring Claim 1. So she couldnt independently be in federal court.
Is she allowed to join?
28 US Code 1367 says, "Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties." So I think the answer is P2 can join...but that's not really all that telling.
supplemental jurisdiction & party joinder (rule 20) 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."
-
lacrossebrother
- Posts: 7150
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm
supplemental jurisdiction & party joinder (rule 20)
Last edited by lacrossebrother on Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
swtlilsoni
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am
Re: supplemental jurisdiction & party joinder (rule 2
P2 can join because her claim has a common nucleus of operating fact
