Top Law Schools

Got a question that I can't seem to figure out using Kaplan's outline.

If a plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction by aggregating two state law claims that are each under the $75,000 requirement (such as two claims for $50,000 each), can another plaintiff join the first plaintiff using supplemental jurisdiction if the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence? I ask because I have always been told that there needs to be an "anchor "claim," yet each of the two claims from the first plaintiff would not in itself satisfy diversity jurisdiction. I could have sworn that I saw an example where the second plaintiff was allowed to join.

Thanks for the help!

I think you are conflating two separate issues: 1. Do a Plaintiff's claims need to have a common nucleus of operative fact/same transaction or occurrence in order to be aggregated to meet the AIC requirements? 2. Does Supplemental Jurisdiction require a common nucleus of operative fact/same transaction or occurrence?

1. Do a Plaintiff's claims need to have a common nucleus of operative fact/same transaction or occurence in order to be aggregated to meet the AIC requirements-

No. In order to meet AIC requirements for diversity, a single TT can aggregate all of her unrelated claims against D (multiple TT's cannot aggregate their separate claims against D to meet AIC)

2. Does Supplemental Jurisdiction require a common nucleus of operative fact/same transaction or occurrence ?

Yes, in order for a Federal Court to have supplemental jurisdiction over a claim

1. the claim must be from a common nucleus of operative fact/same transaction or occurrence- (there is a limitation to this though, even if a supplemental claim does come from a CNOF, TT's in diversity cases will not allowed to join claims UNLESS the only reason the claim couldn't be joined by itself, is that the claim didn't meet the AIC- in other words, the supplemental claim will not destroy diversity)

This is the limitation, as I understand it from my barbri lecture, but i have seen different versions of the limitation out there.

Anyone feel free to correct me- I am working through figuring this out myself.

I guess my question is whether the second plaintiff could join the first plaintiff's lawsuit, even though neither of the first plaintiff's claims could individually satisfy SMJ requirements. Assume all of the claims, including that of the second plaintiff, arise under the same transaction or occurrence. Is there supplemental jurisdiction for the second plaintiff?

max_p wrote:I guess my question is whether the second plaintiff could join the first plaintiff's lawsuit, even though neither of the first plaintiff's claims could individually satisfy SMJ requirements. Assume all of the claims, including that of the second plaintiff, arise under the same transaction or occurrence. Is there supplemental jurisdiction for the second plaintiff?

Yes if P2 does not destroy diversity.

Awesome. Thanks!