The Subject Matter Of The Federal Courts - Supplemental Claims And Parties

Front 1

The Subject Matter of the Federal Courts - Supplemental Claims and Parties

Back 1

1) United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)
2) Aldinger v. Howard (1976)
3) Owen Equipment & Erection v. Kroger (US 1978)
4) Finley v. US (US 1989)
5) Exxon Mobile v Allapttah (US 2005)
6) USC 28 § 1367

Front 2

Pendent Jurisdiction

Back 2

Used when P, in her complaint, appends a claim lacking an independent basis for federal jurisdiction to a claim possessing such a basis

Front 3

Ancillary Jurisdiction

Back 3

Used when either P or D injects a claim lacking an independent basis for federal jurisdiction by way of a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party complaint

Front 4

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Back 4

In 1990 Congress decided to treat pendent and ancillary jurisdiction collectively
• You have a lawsuit that has more than one claim
• One of those claims arises under federal subject-matter jurisdiction
• If criteria for Supp Jurisdiction, the federal courts can hear additional claims, despite them not having subject-matter jurisdiction over those additional claims

Front 5

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)

Back 5

The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact

Front 6

Pendent Jurisdiction (5)

Back 6

1) Exists whenever there is a claim arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the US, or which shall be made, under their authority, AND
2) The representation between that claim and the state claims made in the complaint permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional “case”
3) The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on the court
4) The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact
5) But, if the P’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming the substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole

Front 7

Pendent Jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not the P's right

Back 7

1) Jurisdiction lies in considerations of the judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants
2) If these are not present a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims, even though bound to apply state law to them
3) Jury confusion resulting from handling different claims

Front 8

Claims that should not be heard in federal court

Back 8

1) If federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well
2) If it appears that the state issues substantially predominate the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution to state tribunals
3) Reasons independent of jurisdictional considerations that would justify separating state and federal claims for trial
4) Once it appears that a state claim constitutes the real body of a case, to which the federal claim is only an appendage, the state claim may fairly be dismissed

Front 9

Cases where State claim is closely tied to questions of federal policy (strong arguments for PJ)

Back 9

1) In the present case, for example, the allowable scope of the state claim implicates the federal doctrine of pre-emption; while this interrelationship does not create statutory federal question jurisdiction, its existence is relevant to the exercise of discretion
2) Pre-emption
- Federal law pre-empts (trumps) state law (drug laws)
3) Therefore, federal judges are better suited to deal with case involving pre-emption because state judges may not agree with the federal law, etc.

Front 10

Pendent Jurisdiciton serves 2 purposes

Back 10

1) It ensures that litigants will not be dissuaded from maintaining their federal rights in a federal court solely because they can dispose of all claims by 1 litigation in the state, but not the federal forum
- When jurisdiction over the federal claim is exclusive in the federal judiciary, only pendent jurisdiction makes possible a complete remedy for vindication of the P’s rights
2) Assuming that the litigants are in a federal forum, pendent jurisdiction serves the interest of avoiding piecemeal (little by little) litigation
- promotes judicial economy and greater expedition for the litigants

Front 11

Aldinger v. Howard (1976)

Back 11

o P unable to join WA County as a pendant party because it would run counter to the principle that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, and the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the county

Front 12

Owen Equipment & Erection v. Kroger (US 1978)

Back 12

1) Availability of Federal jurisdiction when 1 alleged claim was within diversity jurisdiction and one was not
- To allow complete diversity to be circumvented would flout congressional command
2) No pendant party jurisdiction when main claim is based upon diversity because it would be too easy to get around complete diversity

Front 13

Finely v. US (US 1989)

Back 13

In order for federal court to have jurisdiction
1) Constitution must have given the court the capacity to take it; and
2) an act of Congress must have supplied it
Implication
- endangers pendant party and pendant claim jurisdiction because they are not authorized by Congress

Front 14

Bringing a federal lawsuit

Back 14

1) has to authorized by the federal rules of civil procedure; and
2) the court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim

Front 15

Exxon Mobile v. Allapattah (US 2005)

Back 15

 § 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over claims in the same case that do not meet amount in requirement when at least one plaintiff has original jurisdiction