Lecture 25 – 3
Okay, welcome back.
Let's talk now about Supplemental Jurisdiction.
In 1990 Congress enacted a Supplemental Jurisdiction Statue
that can be found at 28 U.S.C Section 1367.
The statute sought to codify a series
of constitutional common law rulings by the Supreme Court
that had created doctrines known as
ancillary and pendent jurisdiction.
Back when I was in law school
I had to learn the doctrines of ancillary jurisdiction
and pendent jurisdiction.
I will say that it is far more straightforward
to master the supplemental jurisdiction statute
than it is to master those holdings.
Some of those holdings, by the way,
were codified in 28 U.S.C Section 1367
and some were not.
The supplemental jurisdiction statute differs
from the federal question and diversity statutes
in that it seeks to expand the jurisdiction
of the federal courts.
Recall that those statutes do not exploit all
of the power that article 3 of the Constitution confers.
The chart near the beginning of the section
of the casebook discussing supplemental jurisdiction
illustrates this graphically.
As we'll see,
the supplemental jurisdiction statute exploits some,
but not all,
of the unexploited article 3 power.
Two principle purposes animated Congress' conferral
of supplemental jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C Section 1367.
Any thoughts as to what these two purposes are?
First, we want defendants to be able to avail themselves
of all the defensive weapons,
counter claims, cross claims, and third party claims,
authorized by the federal rules.
As you'll see, supplemental jurisdiction is necessary
for them to be able to do so.
Second, there is a desire to avoid
duplicitous state law litigation on ground of efficiency
and concern about inconsistent judgements.
To fully understand supplemental jurisdiction
we need to talk as well about joinder.
We are going to cover joinder in the next two modules,
modules 26 and 27.
So you are going to learn about supplemental jurisdiction
in two steps.
First, in this module,
we'll walk through the statute and cover the basics.
Second, in the next two modules,
we'll see how supplemental jurisdiction enables
liberal joinder of claims and parties to take place.
Okay please open up your rule book to 28 U.S.C Section 1367.
So we can see the unique way
in which this statute is structured.
Initially it's pretty tricky but once you figure it out
the rules that emerge are pretty clear.
Section 1367A creates and confers
the supplemental jurisdiction
that Congress wants the federal courts to exercise.
And then section 1367B
subtracts out from the supplemental jurisdiction
created in section 1367A
a subset of diversity cases and says effectively,
"There is to be no supplemental jurisdiction
in these cases."
The reason why section 1367B subtracts out
a subset of diversity cases
will become obvious when we talk about joinder rules.
For now, I just want you to understand
how sections 1367A and B interact.
Section 1367A states,
"Except as provided in subsections B or C,
or as expressly provided otherwise by federal statute,
as usual, Congress can make specific jurisdictional rules
that differ from the default jurisdictional statutes
such as sections 1331, 1332, 1367.
In any civil action of which the district courts
have original jurisdiction,
the district courts also shall have
supplemental jurisdiction
over all other claims that are so related claims
in the action within such original jurisdiction
that they form part of the same case or controversy
under article 3 of the United States Constitution.
Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that
involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties."
So, section 1367A provides the basic default rule.
If a claim is part of the same case or controversy
as the one giving rise to a claim
over which a federal court has original jurisdiction
the claim falls within the supplemental jurisdiction
of the federal court.
Even though there is no independent basis
for federal jurisdiction over the supplemental claim.
Alright, you may be asking yourselves,
"What does case or controversy mean?"
We'll talk about that more when we cover joinder.
For now, understand that the term comes from article 3
and events is an intention on the part of Congress
to exploit all of the jurisdiction that
article 3 would permit.
In more concrete terms, at the very least,
a claim that is part of the same transaction or occurrence
as the underlying claim on which jurisdiction is premised
also is part of the same case or controversy.
It may, in fact, be that the concept of case or controversy
is slightly broader
than the concept of transaction or occurrence.
The Supreme Court has not been clear on this point.
Or the term case or controversy may in fact be coextensive
with the term transaction or occurrence.
More on this though when we cover joinder.
Okay.
So as we just observed,
section 1367A provides the default rule.
Now, in section 1367B
we subtract out from the grant of supplemental jurisdiction
that we find in section 1367A.
1367B says,
"In any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction founded solely
on section 1332 of this title,"
So 1367B applies only to diversity cases.
"the district courts shall not have
supplemental jurisdiction under subsection A
over claims by plaintiffs."
Here underline the word plaintiffs.
The word refers to plaintiffs in the original diversity case
and not parties pressing counter claims,
cross claims, or third party claims.
"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."
That's a lot to digest initially.
But you'll see that it's actually pretty straightforward
when we discuss joinder in the next two modules.
In a nutshell, section 1367A
creates supplemental jurisdiction.
And then section 1367B subtracts out a bit of that
supplemental jurisdiction for diversity claims.
And so for our purposes what this really means in practice
is that section 1367A covers federal question claims
while section 1367B provides more specific rules
that apply to diversity claims.
Okay, now let's take a look at section 1367C which states,
"The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim under subsection A if one,
the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.
Two, the claim substantially predominates over the claim
or claims over which the district court
has original jurisdiction.
Three, the district court has dismissed all claims
over which it has original jurisdiction.
Or four, in exceptional circumstances there are other
compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
Section 1367C makes discretionary the power
to entertain a claim under supplemental jurisdiction.
What we'll see is that
in cases where a federal question claim
is brought by a plaintiff
but then is thrown out on a motion to dismiss
or a motion for summary judgment
and where all that remains is a state law claim
that is within the supplemental jurisdiction of the court
but for which there is no independent basis of jurisdiction
courts will uniformly decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction.
They will say,
"Take this state law claim back to state court
and litigate it there."
You may be wondering,
"Well what happens if the statute of limitations
has run on such a state law claim in the interim?"
That's where section 1367D comes in.
It states,
"The period of limitations for any claim
asserted under subsection A
and for any other claim in the same action that is
voluntarily dismissed at the same time as
or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection A
shall be told while the claim is pending
and for a period of thirty days after it is dismissed
unless state law provides for a longer tolling period."
Basically, section 1367D gives parties a 30 day window,
and more if state law so specifies,
when a federal district court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction under 1367.
During this window
parties can refile the case in state court.
Finally, section 1367E says,
"As used in this section the term state includes
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and any territory or possession of the United States."
That is also the case, by the way,
for purposes of the diversity statute.
Under the diversity statute,
the term state does not just refer to the 50 states.
It also refers to the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and any territory or possession of the United States.
So, somebody who is domiciled within Puerto Rico
can bring a diversity action against, for example,
somebody who's domiciled in Florida.
We treat Puerto Rico as a state under the diversity statute.
Why would Congress contemplate
broader supplemental jurisdiction
where the claim conferring original jurisdiction
is a federal question claim?
Understand, that's really what happens under
the supplemental jurisdiction statute.
Section 1367A, which is broader,
applies to federal question claims.
While section 1367B, which subtracts jurisdiction,
applies to diversity claims.
The reason has to lie in the idea that it is more important
that plaintiffs with federal question claims
be provided access to a federal forum
than plaintiffs with diversity based claims.
So that covers our introduction
to supplemental jurisdiction.
In the next segment
we'll use the notes and problems
that follow the introductory text
to help us make some sense of what we've just seen.