Fri., Oct. 31

Rule 24. Intervention (a) Intervention of Right Rule 24. Intervention (a) Intervention of Right.  On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:     (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or     (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

(b) Permissive Intervention. (1) In General (b) Permissive Intervention.     (1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:         (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or         (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. . . .

Supplemental Jurisdiction

P (NY) sues D (NY) under federal securities law in federal court P joins under R 18(a) a state law fraud claim against D D impleads insurer I (NY) for state law contract claim D also brings compulsory counterclaim for breach of contract (P didn’t pay all the money he owes under the securities contract)

P(NY) D(NY) I(NY) federal securities state law breach of contract fraud state law Insurance contract

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2 U.S. Const. 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; . . . --to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

P (NY) sues D1 (NJ) for brawl P joins D2 (NY) under R 20(a) P(NY) D1(NJ) D2(NY)

initial approach – even if pendent or ancillary jurisdiction is constitutional, look to the purposes of the statute providing SMJ to the “core” action to see if it is in keeping with the purposes of the statute

after Finley…

28 U.S.C. § 1367. - Supplemental jurisdiction

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.

(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if - (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

P (Cal) sues D1 (Cal) under federal securities law and joins an action against D2 (Cal) under state common law fraud. P federal state securities fraud D1 D2

P(Cal) sues D(Cal) under federal securities law and joins a state law action for a battery occurring a few weeks before the fraud. P(Cal) federal state D(Cal)

P (Cal) sues D (NY) for $50K and joins a state law action for a battery for $30K occurring a few weeks before the fraud. P(Cal) federal state D(NY)

P (Cal) sues D (Cal) under federal securities laws P (Cal) sues D (Cal) under federal securities laws. D joins an action against P for battery, asking for $100k P(Cal) federal state securities battery D(Cal)

P (Cal) sues D (Ore) for state law breach of contract, asking for $100K. D joins an action against P for battery, asking for $25k. P(Cal) state state breach of contract battery D(Ore)

(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

P (NY) sues D (NJ) for battery asking for $100K P (NY) sues D (NJ) for battery asking for $100K. D impleads X (NY) a joint tortfeasor for contribution. X brings 14(a) claims against P from damages from same accident P brings compulsory counterclaim against X

P(NY) battery battery battery D(NJ) contribution X(NY) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules,

P (NY) sues D1 (NJ) for state law battery asking $100k and D2 (NJ) asking $25K. P(NY) $100k $25k D1(NJ) D2(NJ) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules,

(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

Ortega (PR) sues Star-Kist (DE & PA) under state law negligence for $100k and joins with her parents (PR) who ask for $25K for emotional distress. Ortega(PR) Parents(PR) $100k $25k Star-Kist (DE & PA) (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules,

Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah (U.S. 2005)

P1 (NY) sues D (NJ) under state law battery for $100k P1 (NY) sues D (NJ) under state law battery for $100k. D makes a motion to join P2 (NY), who has a claim against D for $25K, as a necessary party P1(NY) P2(NY) R. 19 $100k $25k D(NJ) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules,

P1(NY) sues D (NJ) for $100k and joins with P2 (NJ) who sues D for $100K P1(NY) P2(NJ) $100k $100k D(NJ)

P1(NY) sues D1 (NJ) for $100k. P1 joins with P2 (NY) who sues D2(NJ) for $25k.

P1(NY) P2(NY) $100k $25k D1(NJ) D2(NJ) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules,

recap of supplemental jurisdiction for diversity cases with co-plaintiffs and co-defendants…

No P1(NY) P2(NJ) $100k $100k D(NJ)

Yes P1(NY) P2(NY) $100k $25k D(NJ)

No P(NY) $100k $100k D1(NJ) D2(NY)

No P(NY) $100k $25k D1(NJ) D2(NJ)

P(Cal) sues D(Cal) in state court in Cal under 42 U. S. C P(Cal) sues D(Cal) in state court in Cal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his civil right. Joined to the action is an unrelated state law breach of contract action against D. May D successfully remove? P(Cal) federal state civil rights contract D(Cal)

28 U.S.C. § 1441. - Actions removable generally (c) Joinder of Federal law claims and State law claims.--(1) If a civil action includes— (A) a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (within the meaning of section 1331 of this title), and (B) a claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute, the entire action may be removed if the action would be removable without the inclusion of the claim described in subparagraph (B). (2) Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1), the district court shall sever from the action all claims described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the severed claims to the State court from which the action was removed. Only defendants against whom a claim described in paragraph (1)(A) has been asserted are required to join in or consent to the removal under paragraph (1).

issue preclusion

If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential to the decision then the earlier determination of the issue precludes relitigation of the same issue by someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) in the earlier litigation

Little v. Blue Goose Motor Coach (Ill. 1931)

- P sues D for breach of a contract to buy 10 shares of the C Corp - P sues D for breach of a contract to buy 10 shares of the C Corp. every month for 2 years - D introduces the defense of fraud, on the ground that at the time they entered into the contract P lied to D about the C Corp.’s oil assets - D loses on that issue; judgment for P Subsequently D breaches the contract again - P sues D and D introduces two defenses: statute of frauds (the contract was not in writing) fraud (at the time that they entered into the contract, P lied to D about the C Corp.’s coal assets) - Is D issue precluded?