Hard Multiple Choice on Supplemental Jurisdiction from the 2010 CivPro Exam

Question 1)     Which of the following causes of action in bold is most likely to have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367? Assume that the amount requested is the true amount in controversy for that action.

a.         P1 (a citizen of New York) and P2 (a citizen of Connecticut) sue D (a citizen of New Jersey) for state law battery in federal court in New Jersey. Both P1 and P2 ask for $200,000 from D. P1 joins a crossclaim against P2 for his damages of $1,000 in the same brawl.

b.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of New Jersey) for state law battery in federal court in New Jersey, asking for $200,000. D joins a counterclaim against P under state law battery for damages of $50,000 caused by P in the same brawl. P joins a third-party complaint against his insurer I (a citizen of New York) under state law for indemnification under P’s insurance contract with I, on the ground that I is liable to P for all or part of P’s liability to D.

c.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of New Jersey) for state law battery in federal court in New Jersey, asking for $200,000. Joined to P’s action against D1 is an action under state law battery against D2 (a citizen of New Jersey) for $50,000 for the damages D2 caused P from the same brawl.

d.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of New Jersey) for $50,000 for violation of federal securities law. P joins an action against D for $50,000 for breach of an unrelated contract.

e.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of New Jersey) and D2 (a citizen of New York). P's action against D1 is for $1,000,000 under federal antitrust law. P alleges that D1 entered into an agreement in restraint of trade with D2. P's action against D2, which is for $1000, is under New York state antitrust law concerning the same agreement in restraint of trade.

ANSWER

a.         P1 (a citizen of New York) and P2 (a citizen of Connecticut) sue D (a citizen of New Jersey) for state law battery in federal court in New Jersey. Both P1 and P2 ask for $200,000 from D. P1 joins a crossclaim against P2 for his damages of $1,000 in the same brawl.

This does not have supplemental jurisdiction. It falls under one of the exceptions in 1367(b), since it is a claim by a plaintiff against someone made a party under Rule 20 and "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over [the] claim[ ] would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332" (because the jurisdictional minimum is not satisfied).  

b.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of New Jersey) for state law battery in federal court in New Jersey, asking for $200,000. D joins a counterclaim against P under state law battery for damages of $50,000 caused by P in the same brawl. P joins a third-party complaint against his insurer I (a citizen of New York) under state law for indemnification under P’s insurance contract with I, on the ground that I is liable to P for all or part of P’s liability to D.

This does not appear to have supplemental jurisdiction. It falls under one of the exceptions in 1367(b), since it is a claim by a plaintiff against someone made a party under Rule 14 and "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over [the] claim[ ] would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332" (because the parties are not diverse).  15 of you chose this. (This is, incidentally, an example of where the supplemental jurisdiction statute seems improperly drafted, since there seems nothing wrong about allowing supplemental jurisdiction here.)

c.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of New Jersey) for state law battery in federal court in New Jersey, asking for $200,000. Joined to P’s action against D1 is an action under state law battery against D2 (a citizen of New Jersey) for $50,000 for the damages D2 caused P from the same brawl.

This does not have supplemental jurisdiction. It falls under one of the exceptions in 1367(b), since it is a claim by a plaintiff against someone made a party under Rule 20 and "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over [the] claim[ ] would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332" (because the jurisdictional minimum is not satisfied).  
 

d.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of New Jersey) for $50,000 for violation of federal securities law. P joins an action against D for $50,000 for breach of an unrelated contract.

This does not have supplemental jurisdiction. It cannot because it is not part of the same constitutional case or controversy as P's federal securities fraud action, as is required in 1367(a). Instead, it has its own source of federal SMJ, because the parties are diverse and the jurisdictional minimum is satisfied (because the two actions against D can be aggregated). 

e.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of New Jersey) and D2 (a citizen of New York). P's action against D1 is for $1,000,000 under federal antitrust law. P alleges that D1 entered into an agreement in restraint of trade with D2. P's action against D2, which is for $1000, is under New York state antitrust law concerning the same agreement in restraint of trade.

This is correct. P's action against D2 is part of the same constitutional case or controversy as P's action against D1 and it does not fall under any of the exceptions in 1367(b) (because the anchor action against D1 is federal question, not diversity). This is precisely the form of pendent party jurisdiction that 1367 was enacted to allow. 

 

Comments

[Janet]

Would you mind explaining why, in question (A), P2 joined under Rule 20 and it is not a crossclaim under Rule 13(g)? Since P1 & P2 already have a suit against D, P2 isn't really being joined as he is already a claimant, right?

Thank you.

[Michael Steven Green]

P1's action against P2 is indeed a crossclaim under R 13(g). But it is also a claim by a plaintiff against someone made a party under Rule 20, because P2 got into the lawsuit in the first place due to R 20. (Normally I wouldn't answer questions from students from other schools, but I have a soft spot for USD...)