Supplemental jurisdiction P cannot, D can Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have been researching this over the last 4 hours, I cannot figure it out. Does anyone know what in the **** all of this means? Can you illustrate with examples? Are these even right? because some websites are contradicting the below, and other websites are contradicting the websites that are contradicting the below, and some outlines are contradicting those.

i. In a diversity case, P cannot use supplemental jdx to overcome a lack of diversity.
For example:
ii. But P can use supplemental jdx to overcome lack of diversity in a federal question case.
For example:
iii. And P can also use supplemental jdx to overcome a lack of amount in controversy for a claim in a diversity case.
For example:
iv. And any party but P can use supplemental jdx to overcome either a lack of complete diversity or amount of controversy in any case (diversity or FQ).
(but doesn't iv contradict iii?)
for example:
b. So in summary, a non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal ct if it meets the same transaction or occurrence test UNLESS it is:
i. Asserted by P
ii. In a diversity of citizenship (not FQ) case AND
iii. Would violate complete diversity.
(but this summary doesn't address amount in controversy, so does it really encompass everything?)

Edit: is this 1367? or is this something different?

[cavalier1138]

Honestly, that explanation is a mess, and I think you're going about this in entirely the wrong way.

First, supplemental jx is just that: supplemental. If you aren't already in federal court, there is no supplemental jx. So, for example, it makes no sense to say that a plaintiff can't use it to "overcome" a lack of diversity in a diversity case. If there's a lack of diversity, it wasn't a diversity case at all, so the case was never properly in federal court.

Then, yes, you're in Section 1367, and you should follow the steps there instead of whatever you're trying to do above. The whole point of supplemental jx is that it lets a federal court hear a claim it would not ordinarily be able to hear, so every instance of it will involve "overcoming" a lack of federal jurisdiction.

[Sallen1218]

I have been researching this over the last 4 hours, I cannot figure it out. Does anyone know what in the **** all of this means? Can you illustrate with examples? Are these even right? because some websites are contradicting the below, and other websites are contradicting the websites that are contradicting the below, and some outlines are contradicting those.

i. In a diversity case, P cannot use supplemental jdx to overcome a lack of diversity.
For example:
ii. But P can use supplemental jdx to overcome lack of diversity in a federal question case.
For example:
iii. And P can also use supplemental jdx to overcome a lack of amount in controversy for a claim in a diversity case.
For example:
iv. And any party but P can use supplemental jdx to overcome either a lack of complete diversity or amount of controversy in any case (diversity or FQ).
(but doesn't iv contradict iii?)
for example:
b. So in summary, a non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal ct if it meets the same transaction or occurrence test UNLESS it is:
i. Asserted by P
ii. In a diversity of citizenship (not FQ) case AND
iii. Would violate complete diversity.
(but this summary doesn't address amount in controversy, so does it really encompass everything?)

Edit: is this 1367? or is this something different?

You need to think about WHAT p is trying to bring in:

For adding an additional P- Joinder of parties- 1367 (a) giveth, 1367 (b) taketh away-
Permissive joinder (add a P against D)- can't destroy complete diversity and must have common nucleus of operative fact.
UNLESS- P is asserting a CLAIM against party brought in by: Impleader (D brought them in to indemnify or contribute); Compulsory Joinder; Permissive Joinder (meaning P added them and wants to claim AGAINST them); or Intervenors (came in as matter of right or permission by court).

For additional CLAIMS by P against SAME D- same trx or occurrence, diversity will already exist for initial diversity claim. NO amount in controversy requirement.

If P COUNTERCLAIMS against a claim- there is NO Supplemental jx, must have complete diversity and AIC. Fair since P brought the case and should have chosen wisely.

The easiest way I remember it- P cannot choose to destroy diversity after choosing to file in fed ct.; D can do just about anything so long as court sees fit.