Civ Pro 4

Front 1

Next Supplemental jx heading, talk about 1367

Back 1

Confers supplemental Jurisdiction on federal courts. Used only when there is no independent basis of jurisdiction between parties.
a.Supplemental Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over claims brought between existing parties, or between existing and new parties for which there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction if those claims are considered independently. (UMW v. Gibbs: where there are two claims against one party, one federal and one state, the district court is granted subject matter jurisdiction over the state claim via the federal claim.)

Front 2

Structure of 1367

Back 2

i.Section (a): Confers supplemental jurisdiction on the federal courts to the extent permitted by Art III over claims and parties for which there is no independent basis for jurisdiction, subject to the exceptions set out in subsection (b) and (c).
ii.(b) Excepts certain claims and parties where jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
iii.(a) and (b): Together authorize broad supplemental jurisdiction over claims combined with claims brought under federal question jurisdiction – and authorize a narrower supplemental jurisdiction over claims combined with state-law claims brought under diversity.
iv.(c): Specifies circumstances under which a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
v.(d): Provides that statue of limitations for claims over which the district court has supplemental jurisdiction, including state-law claims, are tolled during the period the claims are pending in federal court.

Front 3

Hypo: P from CA files lawsuit under 1332 and 1331 against: D1(NV) D2(NY) and D3(AZ). If D2 impleads a CA 3rd party D and the 3rd party D files a compulsory counter claim (state claim) against P--and it falls under 1367a. Does 1367b take away jx?-because the state claim does not just fall under 1332, but also 1331?

Back 3

Even if the federal claim agains the NY D is dismissed (for other jx'l purposes), the CA 3rd party impleader can maintain its state counterclaim against the CA P.

Front 4

Still in this next Supp Jx. Talk about Free v. Abbot Lab

Back 4

Originally brought under 1332, D removed under 1441(a) from state to federal court, P moved to remand and it was granted--holding that it lacked federal question jx and that it had diversity only over the named Ps, and not over the un-named members of the class. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jx b/c the claims arose over "novel issues of state law."

Front 5

What do you need before you can rely on 1367?

Back 5

1331 or 1332

Front 6

Talk about 1331 and 1367

Back 6

May provide for supplemental jx so long as it is closely related to the federal question at hand

Front 7

Talk about 1332 and 1367

Back 7

Where a claim is based solely on 1332 (no federal question) supplemental jx under 1367a is not permitted over claims by PLAINTIFFS against persons made paries under Rule 14(impleader), 19(joinder), 20(Joinder), or 24(intervention)