Multiple Choice Question from the 2010 CivPro Exam

Question 2)     Which of the following causes of action in bold is least likely to have federal subject matter jurisdiction (whether original or supplemental)? Assume that the amount requested is the true amount in controversy for that action.

a.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of Connecticut) under state law battery for $100,000. D joins a state law contribution action for $50,000 against X (a citizen of Connecticut) on the theory that X was a joint tortfeasor with D.

b.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of Connecticut) under state law battery for $100,000. D joins a state law battery action against P for $50,000 for D's damages in the same brawl.

c.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of Connecticut) and D2 (a citizen of New Jersey) under state law battery. P asks for $100,000 from each. D1 joins a state law battery action against D2 for D1's damages of $20,000 in the same brawl. D1 also joins an unrelated state law breach of contract action for $20,000 against D2.

d.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of Connecticut) under state law battery for $100,000. D joins a state law action against P for $100,000 for breach of an unrelated contract.

e.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of New Jersey) for $1,000,000 under federal antitrust law for entering into an agreement in restraint of trade. P joins a $10,000 action against D under New York state antitrust law concerning the same agreement.

ANSWER

a.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of Connecticut) under state law battery for $100,000. D joins a state law contribution action for $50,000 against X (a citizen of Connecticut) on the theory that X was a joint tortfeasor with D.

Wrong. D's action against X has supplemental jurisdiction under 1367. It is part of the same constitutional case or controversy as P's action against D and it does not fall under any of the exceptions in 1367(b).

b.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of Connecticut) under state law battery for $100,000. D joins a state law battery action against P for $50,000 for D's damages in the same brawl.

Wrong. D's action against P has supplemental jurisdiction under 1367. It is part of the same constitutional case or controversy as P's action against D and it does not fall under any of the exceptions in 1367(b).

c.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of Connecticut) and D2 (a citizen of New Jersey) under state law battery. P asks for $100,000 from each. D1 joins a state law battery action against D2 for D1's damages of $20,000 in the same brawl. D1 also joins an unrelated state law breach of contract action for $20,000 against D2.

This is correct. D1's unrelated state law breach of contract action for $20,000 against D2 does not have supplemental jurisdiction (because it is not part of the same constitutional case controversy as P's actions against D1 and D2). It also does not have its own source of SMJ, because the jurisdictional minimum is not satisfied, even when it is aggregated with D1's other action against D2.

d.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of Connecticut) under state law battery for $100,000. D joins a state law action against P for $100,000 for breach of an unrelated contract.

Wrong. D's action against P as its own source of SMJ - it is a perfectly acceptable diversity suit.

e.         P (a citizen of New York) sues D1 (a citizen of New Jersey) for $1,000,000 under federal antitrust law for entering into an agreement in restraint of trade. P joins a $10,000 action against D under New York state antitrust law concerning the same agreement.

Wrong. P's action against D has supplemental jurisdiction. It 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).

 

Comments

[Paul the 1L]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but answer A would not have SMJ because joint tortfeasors cannot be joined under Rule 19 due to the ruling in Temple (498 U.S. 5)?
Secondly, in answer C, isn't D1's joinder of the state law breach of K claim against D2 allowed under Rule 18 since the first crossclaim had sufficient supplemental jurisdiction?

[Michael Steven Green]

Concerning a: Joinder of D's action against X under Rule 14 is permissible. The fact that Rule 19 could not be used is irrelevant. In addition, even if D had tried to use R 19, the court would have refused to grant D's motion to join X as a necessary party. The court would not have dismissed D's action against X on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. Satisfying the joinder rules and satisfying the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction are different issues.

Concerning c: Yes, joinder of the unrelated contract action under Rule 18 would be permissible. But that does not mean that there would be supplemental jurisdiction for the action. To repeat, satisfying the joinder rules and satisfying the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction are *different* issues.