Civil Procedure 2005

Class 28: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Aggregation and Supplemental

Jurisdiction

Oct. 31, 2005

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!

A New Supreme Court Nominee

• Samuel Alito • Judge on U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit

TENSION BETWEEN

• Liberal joinder rules

• Subject matter jurisdiction requirement

TRADITIONAL AGGREGATION RULES CONT’D

• Multiple Ps sue the same D for different claims: e.g. Dorothy – ME (passenger) sues George- TX (driver) in federal court for $45,000 for damages suffered in a car crash.

• A. Is there subject matter jurisdiction? What if Laura- DC, also a passenger in George’s car, wants to join as a plaintiff to sue George for $35,000 for her injuries arising from the same accident?

• B. Will the supplemental jurisdiction statute change the result?

TRADITIONAL AGGREGATION RULES CONT’D

• Would it make any difference to your answers in the previous hypothetical if Dorothy’s claim was for $90,000?

TRADITIONAL RULES FOR AGGREGATION

• Single P w/2 or more claims vs. single D

• 2 Ps with claims against a single D - “separate and distinct”/”common & undivided interest” test

• Single P w/ claims vs. multiple Ds

• Counterclaims

Originally 3 kinds of jurisdiction over related claims

• Pendant claim jurisdiction

• Pendant party jurisdiction

• Ancillary jurisdiction – Related claims asserted by D as counterclaim or other additional parties after initial complaint

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)

• Leading case on pendant claim jurisdiction

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Rationale in Gibbs

• Constitutional source

• Power

• Discretion

• Policy Justification

U.S. Constitution Article III section 2

• The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--

• Operative word is “Cases”

2 step test in Gibbs

• 1. Does the court have jurisdictional POWER to entertain the pendant claim? Hint: look at relationship between claims

• 2. If the court has that power, does the exercise of sound DISCRETION indicate that the federal court ought to assert that discretion? What factors must the court take into account?

Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute

• Court reacts to Finley case , 490 U.S. 545 (1989)

Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute

• 28 U.S.C. § 1367