Studicata Civil Procedure

Question 1

When you have a multi-claim question and there would not be SMJ for the additional claim on a standard basis..

Answer 1

you need to know whether or not Supplemental Jurisdiction applies to the additional claim.

Question 2

Situations in which Supplemental Jurisdiction APPLIES to the additional claim

Answer 2

+ compulsory counterclaims
+ additional parties to a compulsory counterclaim
+ impleader of third party defendants for purposes of claims by the third party plaintiffs against the third party defendants and claims by the TPDs against the TPPs, but NOT claims by the original plaintiff against the TPDS
+ multiple plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 but only for amount-in-controversy purposes

Question 3

Situations where Supplemental Jurisdiction DOES NOT APPLY to the additional claim

Answer 3

• impleader of third party defendants for purposes of solving lack of diversity of lack of amount in controversy problems in CLAIMS BY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS
• Rule 20 joinder of co-plainittifs and/or co-defendants, for purposes of solving a lack of complete diversity

Question 4

Give an example of a compulsory counterclaim and whether SJ would apply. What would happen if there were additional parties to the counterclaim?

Answer 4

P. citizen of state A, brings a federal question claim against D, another citizen of state A. D asserts a state-law-based compulsory counterclaim against P (ie a claim based on the same transaction or occurrence). The court can hear the cc, even though there is no diversity between P and D, and even if less than 75k is at stake.

This is because Supplemental jurisdiction APPLIES to compulsory counterclaims. Regarding additional parties, D CAN add someone as a co-defendant to D’s counterclaim against P, even if this second person and the D are not diverse

Question 5

Give example of when/how impleader of TPDs works with supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 5

Maggie (citizen of TN) brings a state-law diversity claim against Katie (citizen of NY). Katie imp leads Costco (a corporation that is a citizen of both State A and State B) on a state law claim that will require Costco to reimburse Katie if Katie is found liable to Maggie. The court can hear a 50k claim by Katie v Costco (even though Katie and Costco are not diverse and the AIC is not met) AND can hear a 50k state-law compulsory counterclaim by Costco v Katie (again, even though they are not diverse) as well as a 50k claim by Costco v Maggie (even though THEY are not diverse). BUT THE COURT CANNOT HEAR A STATE CLAIM by Maggie v Costco because Supplemental Jurisdiction does not apply and Maggie is not diverse from Costco.

Question 6

Multiple plaintiffs joined under Rule 20, but for amount in controversy purposes ONLY:

Answer 6

Maggie (TN citizen) and Katie (NY citizen) join as Rule 20 co-plaintiffs to sue Maura (MD citizen) on state-law claims. Maggie’s claim is for 100,000 and Katie’s claim is for 50k; both arise from the same transaction/occurrence. Supplemental jurisdiction applies to that Katie does not have to meet the amount in controversy. But, SJ can’t relieve a lack of complete diversity in the Rule 20 joinder situation. So if Michael, citizen of MD, wants to join the suit on a state law claim arising from that same transaction or occurrence, the court cannot hear the case while Michale is present because that would raise a diversity issue between Michael and Maura that SJ can’t fix).

Question 7

Moment of Filing Rule: Remember that the time as of which the existence of diversity is calculated is _________. Changes of citizens ship post-filing_______

Answer 7

Remember that the time as of which the existence of diversity is calculated is the moment the claim is filed. Changes of citizenship post filing can neither create nor destroy diversity (as long as the identity of the parties doesn’t change).