Supplemental Jurisdiction

Question 1

First step under 1367a

Answer 1

is there a claim that has SMJ on its own

if on 1332 must have complete diversity

Question 2

Second step under 1367a

Answer 2

is there an attached claim that doesn’t have SMJ

Question 3

Third Step under 1367a

Answer 3

are they factually related

Question 4

Fourth step under1367b

Answer 4

is the freestanding claim based on diversity?

Question 5

Fifth Step under 1367b

Answer 5

is it asserted by a single plaintiff, R19 plaintiff, or rule 24 plaintiff

Question 6

Gap rules

Answer 6

plaintiff asserting the claim is a R20 or R23 plaintiff

Question 7

Sixth step under 1367b

Answer 7

is the claim against a R14,R19,R20, or R24 party

Question 8

Seventh Step under 1367c

Answer 8

court can decline SMJ if it wants to even if it passes all the tests

Question 9

Results of answers to the steps

Answer 9

1- yes: keep going
    no: no SMJ
2- yes: keep going
    no: no SMJ
3- yes: keep going
    no: No SMJ
4- yes: keep going
    no: discretion
5- yes: keep going
    No: discretion
6- yes: SMJ destroyed
    no: discretion

Question 10

relation between 1367a and 1367b

Answer 10

1367a gives SMJ 1367b destroys whats given by a

Question 11

Exxon Mobile

Answer 11

contamination theory
A party/ claim cannot be joined under supp jurisdiction if it will destroy the complete diversity over cases that are based on diversity because it takes away the pupose of providing a federal forum

Question 12

pendant jurisdiction

Answer 12

applied to federal question claims, allowed a plaintiffs claims that were factually related to the federal question claim to be added

Question 13

ancillary jurisdiction

Answer 13

jurisdiction over claims that were not the original claims and therefore almost exclusively acted on claims brought by the defendant, applied to both diversity and federal question cases