So, I'm a bit confused, b/c Freer oversimplifies the rule, and the BigBook is too legally.
My understanding is that there are two fact-patterns when this comes into play:
1. P wants to sue a third party defendant who was impleaded or joined via indispensability
2. P2 intervenes or is indispensable and wishes to bring additional claims against D
Can someone verify. Some hypos would be appreciated!
Supp. Jurisdiction, Re: limitation on P 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."
-
L_William_W
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:20 am
Re: Supp. Jurisdiction, Re: limitation on P
There was a question about supplemental jurisdiction on the July 2015 NJ Bar. You're right that supplemental jurisdiction involves a third party claim. The third party doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction but since the third party claim is based on the same set of facts, the court will allow supplemental jurisdiction.
EX: Jack, a citizen of California, brings an action in federal court for $80,000 against Mike, a citizen of Oregon, for injuries Jack sustained during a fist-fight with Mike. Mike counterclaims against Jack, claiming that he was injured during the same fight by both Jack and a third party, Paul, who is also a citizen of Oregon. In a normal case where Mike was the plaintiff and Paul was the defendant, the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties (Mike and Paul both live in Oregon). Here, however, since the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts, supplemental jurisdiction is extended and Paul may be joined as a third party plaintiff
EX: Jack, a citizen of California, brings an action in federal court for $80,000 against Mike, a citizen of Oregon, for injuries Jack sustained during a fist-fight with Mike. Mike counterclaims against Jack, claiming that he was injured during the same fight by both Jack and a third party, Paul, who is also a citizen of Oregon. In a normal case where Mike was the plaintiff and Paul was the defendant, the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties (Mike and Paul both live in Oregon). Here, however, since the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts, supplemental jurisdiction is extended and Paul may be joined as a third party plaintiff
