Supplemental Jurisdiction

Question 1

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 1

Allows a federal district court to hear claims over which it would not ordinarily have jurisdiction.

Permits a claim falling outside of federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction to “piggy back on a claim” that does fall within one of those jurisdictions.

There must be a claim over which a court has original jurisdiction - that is, supplemental jurisdiction is only available over a claim if the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as a claim over which the court would have federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Question 2

When do claims arise out of the same transaction or occurence?

Answer 2

If they arise out a of a common nucleus of operative fact.

Question 3

T o F? Supplemental jurisdiction can never include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties, if there would not otherwise be federal jurisdiction over those parties.

Answer 3

False.

Question 4

In a diversity case, supplemental jurisdiction may be exercised over the claims of a party other than the plaintiff if the only reason the other party’s claims do qualify for diversity jurisdiction is what?

Answer 4

Failure the meet the amount in controversy requirement.

Question 5

In a diversity case, a court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim by a plaintiff proposed to be joined under Rule 19 (compulsory joinder, or a claim by a plaintiff seeking to intervene under Rule 24, when exercising supplement jurisdiction would do what?

Answer 5

destroy complete diversity of the parties.

Question 6

T or F? A court can exercise supplement jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made party to the suit under Rule 14 (Impleader) 19, 20 (permissive joinder), or 24.

Answer 6

False.

Question 7

If non- diverse parties are joined to a case, and there is no supplement jurisdiction to hear their claims, the court may dismiss which claims?

Answer 7

Only the claims of the non-diverse parties.

Question 8

If the additional claim arises out of the same transaction or occurence and the plaintiff is not trying to circumvent diversity jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the following situations: (4)

Answer 8

(1) The state law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law
(2) The state law “substantially predominates over the claim over which the district court has jurisdiction
(3) The court has dismissed all the claims over which it had jurisdiction
(4) in “exceptional circumstance, “there are other compelling reasons” to decline jurisdiction