Can you hang additional claims or parties on an existing and get both into federal court? Case Type of SMJ? Rationale Congressional Takeaway Jurisdiction Intent United Ancillary: Yes Common Look to Adding a is okay Mine add a new nucleus of Article III and (and under court’s Workers v. claim operative define discretion) as long as it “case”; Gibbs facts Some emerges from same suggestion of nucleus of “common Congressional operative facts.” Claims tailwind are fact-based. (Congress wants labor claims in fed court). Aldinger v. Combo: add No Civil Rights Congressional You can’t add parties and Howard a new party Act headwind: stay in federal court by and a state Congress working around claim want Congressional against the this type of satisfy new party claim in Congressional intent. federal court Owen v. Pendent: No New party Congressional If you add a new party Kroger add a new breaks headwind: under Rule 14 and they party complete Congress only break complete diversity, diversity wants there is no supplemental Complete jurisdiction. Diversity cases in federal court Finley v. Combo: No (but Congress Congressional This was wrong led to US new claim would be was silent silence: court 1367. and new overturned on adding reads silence party by 1367) new parties as closer to a in this headwind. situation Jurisdictional Aggregation Math. Can you Combine? YES: 1 Plaintiff, 1 Defendant, Two Claims (each $75k, but combined they exceed $75k) Class Action against 1 Defendant (as long as at least 1 member exceeds $75k, that’s fine): Exxon Mobil v. Allapatah If one plaintiff satisfies the amount, other plaintiffs can hook on under Rule 23 and Rule 20 (Allapatah and Star-Kist). NO: One Plaintiff, Two Defendants, each claim under 75k.
Can you hang additional claims or parties on an existing and get both into federal court? Case Type of Jurisdiction SMJ? Rationale Congressional Intent Takeaway United Mine Workers v. Gibbs Ancillary: add a new claim Yes Common nucleus of operative facts Look to Article III and define “case”; Some suggestion of Congressional tailwind (Congress wants labor claims in fed court). Adding a is okay (and under court’s discretion) as long as it emerges from same “common nucleus of operative facts.” Claims are fact-based. Aldinger v. Howard Combo: add a new party and a state claim against the new party No Civil Rights Act Congressional headwind: Congress want this type of claim in federal court You can’t add parties and stay in federal court by working around Congressional satisfy Congressional intent. Owen v. Kroger Pendent: add a new party No New party breaks complete diversity Congressional headwind: Congress only wants Complete Diversity cases in federal court If you add a new party under Rule 14 and they break complete diversity, there is no supplemental jurisdiction. Finley v. US Combo: new claim and new party No (but would be overturned by 1367) Congress was silent on adding new parties in this situation Congressional silence: court reads silence as closer to a headwind. This was wrong led to 1367. Jurisdictional Aggregation Math. Can you Combine? YES: 1 Plaintiff, 1 Defendant, Two Claims (each $75k, but combined they exceed $75k) Class Action against 1 Defendant (as long as at least 1 member exceeds $75k, that’s fine): Exxon Mobil v. Allapatah If one plaintiff satisfies the amount, other plaintiffs can hook on under Rule 23 and Rule 20 (Allapatah and Star-Kist). NO: One Plaintiff, Two Defendants, each claim under 75k.
CivPro_Neuborne_2015.docx