Supplemental Jurisdiction

Question 1

the Gibbs two part test (pendant + ancillary jurisdiction)

Answer 1

1) power to hear: substantial and non-frivolous federal claim + state law claim that arises out a common nucleus of operative fact
- need an anchor claim (fq or diversity)
- same event or same set of facts

2) factors in exercising discretion for jurisdiction:
- whether federal or state law predominates
- whether there are novel or complex state law issues
- progression of case in federal vs state claims
- possibility of jury confusion

Question 2

does a court have to exercise supplemental jurisdiction?

Answer 2

no they do not; they can dismiss the state claim

in a situation where the anchor claim is dropped from the case, the federal court may still exercise discretion to hear state law claim

** once SMJ is established, it does not disappear **

Question 3

1367(a)

Answer 3

in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in action with such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case of controversy

*must have an anchor claim
*must arise from common nucleus of operative fact

Question 4

an exception to 1367(a)

Answer 4

1367(b)

Question 5

1367(b)

Answer 5

if any civil action of which the districts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 (diversity jurisdiction), the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs made against persons made parties under rule 14, 19, 20, 24

** this only applies for DIVERSITY jurisdiction
** this only applies to original plaintiffs

Question 6

1367(c) may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if:

Answer 6

• tag along claim raises novel or complex state issues
• tag along claim predominates over the anchor claim
• anchor claim is dismissed early on in litigation

Question 7

which case formed supplemental jurisdiction?

Answer 7

Kroger!

Question 8

what does the Gibbs case tell us?

Answer 8

the requirement any claim to be joined by supplemental jurisdiction arises from a “common nucleus of operative fact”

Question 9

what does Kroger case tell us?

Answer 9

an anchor is necessary in order for a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (they have to have a claim the court can hear independently)