Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis

Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis - Supplemental...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis Basically, there are three steps you should take 1. Is there Constitutional power under Article III, § 2 to hear the supplemental claim? a. This is extremely broad b. A constitutional basis for supplemental jurisdiction exists whenever a supplemental question is part of a case over which the court has jurisdiction. c. Basically if the court has jurisdiction of any claim, and the supplemental claim arises from “the same nucleus of operative facts” ( Gibbs ), then there is Constitutional authority 2. Is there a statutory grant of jurisdiction over the related claim? a. § 1367(a) grants the federal courts jurisdiction to hear all related claims that are part of the same “case” that meets the Gibbs test b. The Gibbs test is basically same as Constitutional power -> if the supplemental claim arises from “the same nucleus of operative facts” then there is jurisdiction under § 1367(a) i. Woolley likes to treat “the same nucleus of operative facts” test as asking the question is there a logical relationship between the claims? ii. Logical relationship seems to be equivalent to “same transaction or occurrence” c. However, § 1367(b) limits the reach of § 1367(a) with regards to certain claims by Πs only in diversity cases i. No supplemental jurisdiction over claims by Πs against persons made parties under Rules 14 (Third-Party), 19 (Joinder), 20 (Permissive Joinder) or 24 (Intervention) ii. No supplemental jurisdiction over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 (Joinder), or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 (Intervention) iii. § 1367(b) does not apply to any claims made by Δs 1. Reasoning is that the Δ did not choose federal court, so shouldn’t punish him by not allowing him to join parties or counterclaim iv. The basic reasoning of § 1367(b) was to codify the holding in Kroger v. The last sentence of § 1367(b) has been read to mean that there is supplemental jurisdiction over a claim otherwise excepted from supplemental jurisdiction by subsection (b) if § 1332 (Diversity Requirement), as understood before the passage of § 1367, would have authorized jurisdiction over that claim...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 4

Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis - Supplemental...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online