OWEN EQUIPMENT & ERECTION CO. V. KROGER United States Supreme Court 437 U.S. 365 (1978) Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court [two justices dissented]. In an action in which federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, may the plaintiff assert a claim against a third-party defendant when there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim? The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in this case that such a claim is within the ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts. We granted certiorari, because this decision conflicts with several recent decisions of other Courts of Appeals. I On January 18, 1972, James Kroger was electrocuted when the boom of a steel crane next to which he was walking came too close to a high-tension electric power line. The respondent (his widow, who is the administratrix of his estate) filed a wrongful-death action in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska against the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD). Her complaint alleged that OPPD’s negligent construction, maintenance, and operation of the power line had caused Kroger’s death. Federal jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship, since the respondent was a citizen of Iowa and OPPD was a Nebraska corporation. OPPD then filed a third-party complaint pursuant to Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 14(a)2 against the petitioner, Owen Equipment and Erection Co. (Owen), alleging that the crane was owned and operated by Owen, and that Owen’s negligence had been the proximate cause of Kroger’s death. OPPD later moved for summary judgment on the respondent’s complaint against it. While this motion was pending, the respondent was granted leave to file an amended complaint naming Owen as an additional defendant [in plaintiff’s action]. Thereafter, the District Court granted [the original D] OPPD’s motion for summary judgment in an unreported opinion. The case thus went to trial between the respondent [Kroger] and the petitioner [Owen] alone. The respondent’s amended complaint alleged that Owen was “a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Nebraska.” Owen’s answer admitted that it was “a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nebraska,” and denied every other allegation of the complaint. On the third day of trial, however, it was disclosed that the petitioner’s principal place of business was in Iowa, not Nebraska, and that the petitioner and the respondent were thus both citizens of Iowa. The petitioner then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court reserved decision on the motion, and the jury thereafter returned a verdict in favor of the respondent. In an unreported opinion issued after the trial, the District Court denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeals held that under this Court’s decision in Mine Workers v. Gibbs, the District Court had jurisdictional power, in its discretion, to adjudicate the respondent’s claim against the petitioner because that claim arose from the “core of ‘operative facts' giving rise to both [respondent's] claim against OPPD and OPPD's claim against Owen.” It further held that the District Court had properly exercised its discretion in proceeding to decide the case even after summary judgment had been granted to OPPD, because the petitioner had concealed its Iowa citizenship from the respondent. … Rule 14(a) provides in relevant part: “At any time after commencement of the action a defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him. [The original D sues the new D, hoping to shift all or part of the blame to the new D—should the P prevail against the original D in the trial’s initial phase.] 2 Page 1 of 5 It is undisputed that there was no independent basis of federal jurisdiction over the respondent’s state-law tort action against the petitioner, since both are citizens of Iowa. And although Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 14(a) permits a plaintiff to assert a claim against a third-party defendant, it does not purport to say whether or not such a claim requires an independent basis of federal jurisdiction. Indeed, it could not determine that question, since it is axiomatic that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create or withdraw federal jurisdiction. In affirming the District Court’s judgment, the Court of Appeals relied upon the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, whose contours it believed were defined by this Court’s holding in Mine Workers v. Gibbs. The Gibbs case differed from this one in that it involved pendent jurisdiction, which concerns the resolution of a plaintiff’s federal- and state-law claims against a single defendant in one action. By contrast, in this case there was no claim based upon substantive federal law, but rather [only] state-law tort claims against two different defendants. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals was correct in perceiving that Gibbs and this case are two species of the same generic problem: Under what circumstances may a federal court hear and decide a statelaw claim arising between citizens of the same State? But we believe that the Court of Appeals failed to understand the scope of the doctrine of the Gibbs case. ... But even if it be assumed that the District Court in the present case had constitutional power to decide the respondent’s lawsuit against the petitioner, it does not follow that the decision of the Court of Appeals was correct. Constitutional power is merely the first hurdle that must be overcome in determining that a federal court has jurisdiction over a particular controversy. For the jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited not only by the provisions of Art. III of the Constitution, but also by Acts of Congress. [11] [¶] The … cases thus make clear that a finding that federal and nonfederal claims arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact,” the test of Gibbs, does not end the inquiry into whether a federal court has power to hear the nonfederal claims along with the federal ones. Beyond this constitutional minimum, there must be an examination of the posture in which the nonfederal claim is asserted and of the specific statute that confers jurisdiction over the federal claim, in order to determine whether “Congress in [that statute] has ... expressly or by implication negated” the exercise of jurisdiction over the particular nonfederal claim. Aldinger. III The relevant statute in this case, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), confers upon federal courts jurisdiction over “civil actions where the matter in controversy ... is between ... citizens of different States.” This statute and its predecessors have consistently been held to require complete diversity of citizenship. That is, diversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff. Over the years Congress has repeatedly re-enacted or amended the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, leaving intact this rule of complete diversity. Whatever may have been the original purposes of diversity-ofcitizenship jurisdiction, this subsequent history clearly demonstrates a congressional mandate that diversity jurisdiction is not to be available when any plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any defendant. As used in this opinion, the term “nonfederal claim” means one as to which there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Conversely, a “federal claim” means one as to which an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 Page 2 of 5 [16] [¶] Thus it is clear that the respondent could not originally have brought suit in federal court naming Owen and OPPD as codefendants, since citizens of Iowa would have been on both sides of the litigation. Yet the identical lawsuit resulted when she amended her complaint. Complete diversity was destroyed just as surely as if she had sued Owen initially. In either situation, in the plain language of the statute, the “matter in controversy” could not be “between ... citizens of different States.” . . . ……………………………………………. It is not unreasonable to assume that, in generally requiring complete diversity, Congress did not intend to confine the jurisdiction of federal courts so inflexibly that they are unable to protect legal rights or effectively to resolve an entire, logically entwined lawsuit. Those practical needs are the basis of the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. But neither the convenience of litigants nor considerations of judicial economy can suffice to justify extension of the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction to a plaintiff’s cause of action against a citizen of the same State in a diversity case. Congress has established the basic rule that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 only when there is complete diversity of citizenship. “The policy of the statute calls for its strict construction.” To allow the requirement of complete diversity to be circumvented as it was in this case would simply flout the congressional command.21 Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. Notes and Questions: 1. In Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services, 545 U.S. 546 (2005), the United States Supreme Court finally answered a question that has long-divided lower federal courts–not to mention the Supreme Court, in this 5-4, three-opinion case. Source: <http://everybusinesslisting.com/custom/domain_1/image_files/sitemgr_photo_167.jpg> Permission: Reprinted with Permission of EveryMerchant 16 Notably, Congress enacted § 1332 as part of the Judicial Code of 1948, shortly after Rule 14 was amended in 1946. When the Rule was amended, the Advisory Committee noted that “in any case where the plaintiff could not have joined the third party originally because of jurisdictional limitations such as lack of diversity of citizenship, the majority view is that any attempt by the plaintiff to amend his complaint and assert a claim against the impleaded third party would be unavailing.” The subsequent re-enactment without relevant change of the diversity statute may thus be seen as evidence of congressional approval of that “majority view.” 21 Our holding is that the District Court lacked power to entertain the respondent’s lawsuit against the petitioner. Thus, the asserted inequity in the respondent’s alleged concealment of its citizenship is irrelevant. Federal judicial power does not depend upon “prior action or consent of the parties.” Page 3 of 5 In 1991, about 10,000 Exxon dealers filed a diversity-based class-action suit against the Exxon Corporation. They alleged a scheme by Exxon, whereby they were overcharged for fuel purchased from Exxon. Some dealers claimed over $75,000, but most did not. In the consolidated case, a 9-year-old girl sued Star-Kist in a diversity action, seeking damages for unusually severe injuries she received when she sliced her finger on a tuna can. Her family joined in the suit, seeking damages for emotional distress and certain medical expenses. The daughter had damages in excess of $75,000, but none of her three family members could claim that amount. Part II. A of the opinion began with the statement that “The district courts of the United States ... are “courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” As you now know: (a) Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction are mentioned in the Constitution’s Art. III §2 grant of judicial power to the federal courts; and (b) a federal statute (e.g., §1397) is invalid if there is no constitutional source from which it can draw. There is no mention, or even the slightest hint, regarding an intent to empower the courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Isn’t supplemental subject matter jurisdiction thus unconstitutional? 2. The Court went on to say that: once a court has original jurisdiction over some claims in the action, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that are part of the same case or controversy. [¶] The leading modern case for this principle is Mine Workers v. Gibbs. In Gibbs, the plaintiff alleged the defendant’s conduct violated both federal and state law. ... [W]ith respect to plaintiff-specific jurisdictional requirements, the Court held in Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc. (1939), that every plaintiff must separately satisfy the amount-incontroversy requirement. ... The Court reaffirmed this rule, in the context of a class action brought invoking § 1332(a) diversity jurisdiction, in Zahn v. International Paper Co. (1973). [¶] The single question before us, therefore, is whether a diversity case in which the claims of some plaintiffs satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, but the claims of others plaintiffs do not, presents a “civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.” We now conclude the answer must be yes. When the ... complaint contains at least one claim that satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, and there are no other relevant jurisdictional defects, the district court, beyond all question, has original jurisdiction over that claim. Emphasis was added in the above paragraph to ask this question: if the lower courts were split—as was the Allapattah Supreme Court itself (5-4, with 3 opinions)—is the phrase “beyond all question” accurate? This is one of those “teaching moments” whereby one can grasp the authenticity of Ben Franklin’s adage: “Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see” and perhaps none of what you read, including the professor’s case notes . 3. Allapattah did not change the “Thou shalt not aggregate” principle. None of the parties in either consolidated case purported to aggregate their individual claims. They successfully overcame that principle, however, via Allapattah’s application of supplemental jurisdiction, Page 4 of 5 resulting in others being able to piggy-back on a claim that does meet the minimum amount in controversy requirement for diversity cases—whether class actions, or not. Page 5 of 5