Select Page

Civil Procedure II
Quinnipiac University School of Law
Abbott, Melanie Beth

Supplemental Jurisdiction
Originated in case law and is now codified in 28 U.S.C. §1367
A)    If the district courts have original jurisdiction, then they have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the original jurisdiction claim that they form part of the same case or controversy under Art. 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Includes the joinder or intervention of additional parties
B)    When district courts have original jurisdiction founded only on §1332 (diversity), they do not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14,19,20, or 24 or over persons proposed to be joined, when exercising supp jurisdiction would be inconsistent with jurisdictional requirements of 1332.
C)    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
4)      in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction
Courts have interpreted that the relationship under (a) between the federal and state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action comprises but one constitutional case. Federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.
In Re Ameriquest
P alleges that the mortgage company made the true value of her home much less than it was to increase their potential profit
Count 1 alleged a claim under the federal Truth in Lending Act
Counts 2 and 3 alleged state law fraud claims
Court holds that a loose factual connection may be sufficient, so long as the facts are common and operative
Can the state claims be resolved without affecting the federal claims?
Facts between state and federal claim make one story
If Count 2 and 3 dismissed, may not be able to grant full relief under Count 1
Court also finds no reason under the 4 instances to deny supplemental
Szendrey heard about legal or ethical violations
She conducted and investigation and concluded there had been violations and reported her findings to outside counsel as well as bank officials and the Board of Directors
She was fired and so she sued alleging violations of federal employment law and a number of claims under the laws of Puerto Rico for wrongful discharge
Court declines to find supplemental jurisdiction and only keeps the federal employment claim
The Puerto Rican law claims far outnumber the federal claims and their scope also exceeds that of the federal claims
Some are similar to the federal claim but each have their own elements of proof and proof that is not necessary to establish the federal claim
So, the state law claims predominate and they can deny for just this, but they also find that the claims are novel
Her claim belongs to an exclusively Puerto Rican body of law and it is an issue that has not yet been addressed under state law
Some courts now decline supplemental jurisdiction because it is a waste of judicial resources
They say that the focus of federal and state is different as is the approach
So the trials and procedures are more costly, time consuming, and erroneous
In regards to joinder
At common law, a P could join only claims using the same writ regardless of whether the claims are factually related
A mistake in joinder could result in case being thrown out
The federal rules changed all of this (Rule 18 eliminates barriers to joinder of claims by a P)
Judge, under rule 42(b) can sever claims for trial convenience
If P fails to join a clam, and a later court finds it is related to one already decided, it may be barred
Since a P can join as many claims as he/she wishes against a D, rule 18 has no problem
But, if in federal court, it may lack subject matter jurisdiction over P’s state law claim
§1367 has three important variables for joinder:
1)      the basis of the original jurisdiction over the case
2)      the identity of the party (P or D) seeking to invoke supplemental
3)      the Rule authorizing the joinder of the party or claim over whom jurisdiction is sought

The Federal Rule/Statute Regulates Procedure – if the federal rule/statute regulates procedural matters, or if it can be classifies as both procedural and substantive, then the constitutional standard is satisfied
i. Federal Statute? If a federal statute is at issue, and it has been deemed to be procedural, there is no need to determine compliance with the Rules Enabling Act. The analysis is complete and the federal statute should be applied. Stewart Org. Inc. v. Rioch Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988)
ii. Federal Rule? If a Fed Rule is at issue, proceed to NEXT QUESTION
3. Compliance with the Rules Enabling Act – if a Fed Rule is at issue, does the rule comply with the Rules Enabling Act?
a. Rules Defining Legal Rights – does the Fed Rule define legal rights or simply define the judicial process by which such rights are enforced?
i. Defines Legal Rights – if the Fed Rule defines legal rights, then it is substantive and may not be applied in lieu of an applicable state law
ii. Defines Enforcement of Rights – if the Fed Rule merely pertains to the means of enforcing legal rights, then it is procedural. Proceed to NEXT QUESTION
b. Abridgment of state Substantive Rights – does the Fed Rule “abridge, enlarge or modify” any substantive right?
i. No. If not, the rule complies with the Rules Enabling Act and is valid. The Fed Rule should be applied
ii. Yes. If so, proceed to NEXT QUESTION
c. Procedural Interests Advanced? If it appears that substantive rights are modified, can it be said that the Federal Rule advances clear procedural interests and only “incidentally affects litigants’ substantive rights?” Burlington N. Ry. V. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987)
i. Yes. If so, then the rule complies with the Rules Enabling Act and is valid. The Fed Rule should be applied