SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

1. It gets non fed Q, non Diversity in federal court even though claim alone could never
go to federal court as long as claim arises under same t/o
2. Article III. Sec. 2 gives jurisdiction to federal court on a "case or controversy"

Make sure Pl. has an underlying claim that has FQ or Diversity

1367a: all cases that meets Gibbs/same t/o. Applies to joinder of additional parties.

1367b: 1367b - kills supplemental jrd in fed. 3 types when killed in diversity case;
1. Claims by pls v. R.14,19,20,24 (third party def, absentee, joinder ,intervention)
2. Claims by Rule 19 Plaintiffs (absentee)
3. Claims by Rule 24 Plaintiffs (intervention)
.

1367c: Factors to look at to determine if to use supplemental discretion

1. Federal claims are dismissed before trial then dismiss state claims. If
dismiss FQ claim before trial then ought to get rid of state law claim
because it alone can’t be in federal court. Timing is crucial. May 86 state
law claim if FedQ is dismissed early.
2. If state law issue predominates.
3. If combination confuses the jury.

Rule 18 (a) - plaintiff may file anything against defendant

1. If judge decides too many claims then separate trials. Rule 42B
2. Matters may be consolidated in separate trials.
18a – Allows a claimant to assert every claim she has against opposing party.
Check SMJ. FQ, Diversity or Supplemental Jurisdiction.
Joinder - 20a is permissive may join as long as
1. same t/o
2. one common question
3. Check SMJ
If violate Rule 20 WE SEVER and make 2 cases (not separate trial)
(REMEDY IS NOT DISMISSAL FOR MISJOINDER)

Consolidation -. Rule 42. Have more than one case pending in the same jurisdiction. The court orders that
will do things together. Cases are still separate, 2 decisions.
1. Test is common question.

General rule pls sue alone and choose to load up defendent’s side so can avoid whipsaw probelm, each def
can’t blaim an absent defendent.
Counterclaim
1. Compulsory 13a –
a. arises from same t/o,
must assert this or loose
b. Check SMJ , FQ, Diversity, Supplemental
1. Meets 1367a same t/o
2. Check 1367b kills supplemental jurisdiction in diversity case
Claims by Pls v. R14,19,20,24 (third party def. Absentee, joinder, intervention)
Claims by Rule 19 pl (absentee)
Claims by Rule 24 pl (intervention)
2. Permissive 13b
a. does not arise from same t/o
b. Check SMJ
1. Must be FQ or diversity because inherently fails 1367a because not same t/o

Cross Claims 13g

Against a co-party
 IMPLEADER – Rule 14 (is narrower than 18a)

Allows a defending party to join an absentee who is or may be liable to that defending party for the
underlying claim against the defending party. Must do this within 10 days of answering or then ask courts
permission.
A. Indemnity - shift the liability from def to TPD, shift entire liability
example - insurance, vicarious liability
B. Contribution - shift the liability from def to TPD, shift part liability
example - joint tort feasers

14a upsloping - Pl may assert a claim against TPD must arise from same t/o as underlying dispute.
Check SMJ. No supplemental Jurisdiction violates 1367B.

14a downsloping - TPD. May assert a claim against Pl. Supplemental jurisdiction is okay. Meets 1367a
same t/o and 1367b

14a upsloping:
1. Pl asserts claim against TPD
from same t/o
2. Check SMJ
a. FQ
b. Diversity
c. Supplemental TPD
1. Meets 1367 a – same t/o
2. In diversity case supp is killed .
Pl v. Rule 14 def.
 Rule 19 analysis: ABSENTEE (invoked by def. Can be invoked by
court)
Rule 14 D wants indemnity or contribution
from TPD
Is the absentee necessary?

1. P19a2i - interest in efficiency - protect absentee; without her not

D
complete relief among the parties (can argue both ways among the
current parties or among all the parties) OR
2. 19a2ii - protect defendent; can’t be harmed as a legal manner, no
14a downsloping
1. TPD claim preclusion;
asserts claim must be real world harm as a practical matter impair
against P arising
from or
same t/o
impede the person’s ability to protect that interest
2. Check SMJ
a. FQ
***Joint tortfeasers are
b. Diversity TPD
never necessary*** because can 14a implead
c. Supplemental
as TPD
1. Meets 1367a same t/o
2. Meets 1367b diversity
case because only
Rule 14 – D wants indemnity or contribution
applies to pl.
from TPD
Is joinder feasible?
-PJ
-Valid objection to venue D
-PSMJ - alignment. Ask whose side is the absentee on?
Supplemental Jurisdiction – Never okay
1367a - necessary is always same t/o. Meet this.
1367b - Either have rule Rule 19 pl or Rule 19
defendent.

If joinder not feasible because destroys SMJ, do we proceed or dismiss?

If indispensible then can't join. So dismiss 12B7.
Factors to consider
1. Qualitiativley (look to see who will win or loose on the face)-
to what extent prejudicial to absentee or those already parties
2. Molding the decree- Is there something the judge can do so the
harm won’t happen? (Largely ignored by courts)
3. Efficiency - by proceeding without absentee
4. Whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is
dismissed for non-joinder?*** go to state court and can hear both
claim. Goals of rule 19 can be met in state court PJ and SMJ.
INTERVENTION -- RULE 24 allows absentee to bring herself into the case

ALIGNMENT
Choose which side to intervene on – Ask: Where is my interest?
Court may realign.

TIMLINESS
Must intervene timely – up to court’s discretion
Some courts even allow intervention for appeal

TYPE OF INTERVENTION
INTERVENTION BY RIGHT -STATUTUE ALLOWS INTERVENTION
INTERVENTION BY NECESITY - ALLOW INTERVENTION TO PROTECT ABSENTEE’S
INTEREST **unless absentee’s interest is already being looked out for(basically meaningless)

CLAIM OR DEFENSE MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE COMMON QUESTION

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

FQ
DIVERSITY
NO SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION (UNLESS FQ IS UNDERLYING CLAIM)
1. 1367A MET BECAUSE IF ABSENTEE SO CLSOE TO CLAIM THAT
INTEREST CAN BE INFRINGED ON THEN SAME T/O
2. 1367B – FAILS – IN DIVERSITY CASE
A. KILLS SUPP. JUR BY RULE 24 PL
B. KILLS SUPP JUR AGAINST RULE 24 DEF.
 Class Action Rule 23
Courts have to approve settlements
Types of Class Action – 23b
1.a Protect def. against multiple inconsistent obligations
b. similar to 19 – after injunction or declaratory judgment – employment discrimination
2. Injunction/Declaratory Judgment
3. Damages class action
a. Common question must predominate
b. Class action must be superior method to ejudicate
c. Representative must pay to give notice to everyone reasonably identifiable.
(Rep may not be adequate if she can’t afford this).
*Notice allows opt out

REPRESENTATIVE Defendant:
Must meet four requirements: 23a Company
1. Numerosity: Class must be so large
that joinder is impracticale
2. Commonality – Must be a common
claim
3. Typicality- Rep’s claim has to be
typical of rest of claim
4. Adequacy of Rep- Focus on the
lawyer is she capable of representivng CHECK SMJ
someone 1. FQ
**There must be a class – need to be able
to find everyone if win, need a specific 2. Diversity
circumstance can’t say all people a. For citizenship look to citizenship of REP
interested in free speech*** b. For amount in controversy every member
in the class has to assert greater than 75K
3. Supplemental

***If multiple defendant’s can’t have

CLASS supplemental jurisdiction in diversity case
because violates 1367b Pl v. Rule 20 def**
INTERPLEADER – RULE 22

PREMISE
Fight over res (property, stake) court will only distrube the res

TYPE OF INTERPLEADER
True Interpleader –stakeholder is disinterested (usually insurance companies)
Case in the nature of Interpleader –stakeholder is interested party (wants res)

P to D(S/H) and stakeholder does not want to 12B7 dismiss for failure to join an indispensible party can
assert a counterclaim (complusory 13a) against P and then join absentees (Rule 19 or 2)_

P D (Stakeholder)
(13a)
A 13h

No Jury – Stakeholder sues all claimants and claimants assert their case
1. Must convince court that he/she is interpleader fighting over res
2. Must have SMJ
3. Must deposit res in the jurisdiction on the court.

CLAIMANTS FIGHT IT OUT (AND STAKEHOLDER IF INTERESTED)

Jury if meet 7th amendment test

PJ/service of Amount in Diversity Injunction Venue

Process Controversy
Rule Regular Greater than Stakeholder Yes §1391
Interpleader 75K different District where
citizenship substantial
from every part of claim
plaintiff arose
or all
defendants
reside
Statutory nationwide $500 or more Claimants Can have §1397
Interpleader diverse from injunction District where
another /restraint any claimant
(In interested resides
stakeholder,
included)