SMJ - Supplemental Jurisdiction

Question 1

What is another form of SMJ?

Answer 1

Supplemental Jurisdiction!

Question 2

What is Supplemental Jurisdiction?

Answer 2

Supplemental jurisdiction is fundamentally different from diversity and FQ (which get CASES into federal court).

Supplemental jurisdiction gets CLAIMS into a federal case, even though the claims cannot use diversity of citizenship or FQ SMJ.

Question 3

What is the starting point for SJ?

Answer 3

We must have a case ALREADY in FEDERAL court (based on diversity or FQ). (It can be a case pending in federal court)

1) there must already be ONE claim with original jurisdiction;
2) supplemental claim must arise from a common nucleus of operative facts as the original jurisdiction claim such that the claims should be tried together

Question 4

Can additional claims be asserted in federal court?

Answer 4

Yes!! The plaintiff might have addition claims or maybe there are counter claims or crossclaims.

*regardless – the federal court MUST have SMJ over every single claim in the case.

Question 5

Analysis for additional claims in a pending federal case?

Answer 5

1) do you already have a case in federal court (which you want to supplement)

2) Does the additional claim invoke Diversity or FQ SMJ?? (if so - don’t need to go to supplemental jurisdiction)
—-Check for Diversity or FQ jurisdiction over the ADDITIONAL CLAIM: if there is no federal SMJ over the additional claim - it cannot be asserted in the pending case in federal court.
— if additional claim satisfies either diversity or FQ - it can be heard in federal court case

3) if it does not satisfy SMJ - the federal court can still hear the claim if it can invoke SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION (go to supplemental jurisdiction analysis)

Question 6

On an essay - when would you bring up supplemental jurisdiction?

Answer 6

Until you show that an additional claim does NOT satisfy Diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction –> then look to supplemental jurisdiction

Question 7

Steps for Supplemental Jurisdiction?

Answer 7

2) When a claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying case

2 steps:
#1) The claim that we want to get into federal court MUST share a “COMMON NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACT” with the claim that satisfied federal SMJ

Question 8

What is the “common nucleus of operative fact”?

Answer 8

**will always be met when a claim ARISES from the SAME TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE as the underlying case.

Question 8

What is the “common nucleus of operative fact”?

Answer 8

**will always be met when a claim ARISES from the SAME TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE as the underlying case. (common nucleus of operative fact is BROADER than t/o test)

Question 9

if the common nucleus test is met - what limitation do you have to worry about?

Answer 9

*limitation only applies to DIVERSITY JURISDICTION (i.e. cases that got to court through diversity jurisdiction)

Question 10

What is the limitation on the additional claim (even if it does satisfy the “common of nucleus of operative facts” test)?

Answer 10

In DIVERSITY cases - claims by PLAINTIFFS generally CANNOT invoke supplemental jurisdiction

Question 11

What is an EXCEPTION to the limitation on additional claims?

Answer 11

the exception applies when there are MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS, AND the claim by one of them DOES NOT MEET the amount in controversy requirement (in the OG case - and the case only got in because the other P’s claim me the diversity requirements)

**supplemental jurisdiction is granted here if the second P’s claim (that does not satisfy og diversity) also meets the common nucleus test!!

Question 12

is supplemental jurisdiction available for diversity claims by P against persons made parties under IMPLEADER rules?

Answer 12

Once one claim satisfies the requirements for original federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that derive from the same common nucleus of fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in a single judicial proceeding.

However, for cases based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction is not available for claims by the plaintiff against persons made parties under the impleader rules when use of supplemental jurisdiction would be contrary to the requirements of diversity jurisdiction

Question 13

When can a court exercise supplemental jurisdiction?

Answer 13

if plaintiff has both federal and state claims against the D - although there be no diversity, the federal court has discretion to exercise SJ jurisdiction over the claim based on state law - IF the two claims are SO RELATED that they are part of the SAME CASE or CONTROVERSY (essentially means that they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a P would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding)

Question 14

Can a federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over unrelated claims?

Answer 14

a federal court does NOT have discretion to exercise jurisdiction if claims are unrelated .

Question 15

Can a court exercise SJ if it has federal question jurisdiction and plaintiff has a state law claim against D that it cannot invoke diversity for?

Answer 15

When a claim is in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has a state law claim against the defendant that cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction, the federal court has DISCRETION to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim IF the federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.

The court may continue to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state claim even though the federal claim is dismissed on the merits. However, the state claim should probably also be dismissed (without prejudice) if the federal claim is dismissed before trial.

If the federal claim is deemed to be in valid DURING trial, before a verdict was rendered - the court will likely hear the state claim for the sake of judicial economy.

Question 16

when does the limitation on REMOVAL by defendants who are CITIZENS of the FORUM court apply?

Answer 16

It applies ONLY to diversity actions!! NOT to federal question jurisdiction.

Question 17

what happens if there is ‘incidental’ diversity of jurisdiction?

Answer 17

The removal statute provides that “any civil action of which the district courts have [federal question jurisdiction] shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.” [28 U.S.C. §1441(b)]

When both a federal question and diversity jurisdiction exist, the federal question jurisdiction normally “trumps” diversity jurisdiction

Question 18

if both the state court and the federal court have ‘concurrent jurisdiction’ - what can happen?

Answer 18

then a defendant’s motion to have a state case removed to federal courts may be denied - as the state court also has jurisdiction over it.

This will not be the case when a federal court has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over the case (such as in bankruptcy, patent, and copyright, and antitrust cases).

Question 19

if a plaintiff uses a federal statute which arises ONLY in anticipation of the defendants possible defense - is there proper FQ jurisdiction?

Answer 19

NOPE! this is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. The defendant may not even rely on this defense - in which case no federal question would ever be involved.

More importantly - the plaintiff is not claiming a right under the federal statute.