Tutor: Sara Bloch & Amanda Schwartz

Email: SEBloch@law.cwsl.edu & AESchwartz@law.cwsl.edu

Meeting Time: Tuesdays, AUD 4:20-5:20 p.m.
Office Hours: Mondays, Near Donna’s Coffee Cart 11:10-12:35 (Sara)
Fridays 11:10-12:35 P.M. First Floor, Library (Amanda)

Civ Pro II Worksheet #4

Tuesday, February 11, 2019

Class #11, #12, and #13: Involuntary Joinder

Rules 19 & 24
Supplemental Jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. 1367

 Terms to Know
 Supplemental jurisdiction  Feasible
 Original jurisdiction  Matter
 Gibbs case  Relevant
 Four-factor test
I. Involuntary Joinder Rule 19
Step 1: Is the absent party is required/ necessary ?
Step 2: Is it feasible?
If feasible, join that party
If not feasible, then dismiss if not joined (see factors)

a. Rule 19(a)(1)
i. This comes up when Case Filed but the Plaintiff has left someone out.
1. Court reaches up and Grabs the Absent party into case .

ii. A party, who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not
deprive the court of SMJ MUST be joined as a party if in the party’s absence
either: (3 Part Test)
1. The court cannot give existing parties Complete Relief (Rule 19(a)(1)
(A)) OR
2. Either their absence may
a. As a practical matter impair or impeded the absent party from
Protecting its own interest (Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i)) OR
b. Cause existing parties to incur Inconsistent Obligations (Rule
19(a)(1)(B)(ii)

In other words (Restatement of Rule 19): when wondering if the absent

party is necessary, ask yourself three questions:
1. If the absent party is not there, can the Court afford the (present)
parties complete relief?
 If NO, the absent party is necessary.
2. Will the absentee’s interest be harmed if they are not brought
into the case?
 If YES, the absent party is necessary.
3. Will the existing parties have multiple or inconsistent obligations
if absentee is not brought in?
 If YES , the absent party is necessary.

Let’s Practice!
Imagine Amanda own 1,000 shares of stock in xyz corporation (nice!).
But Sara comes and claims that she owns half of the stock in xyz
corporation. Sara sues XYZ corporation, wanting the court to reissue half
the stock in her name. Is Amanda a necessary party? (Keep it mechanical.)
Test #1: If Amanda is not there, can the Court give Sara
complete relief?
No, Sara wants half of Amanda’s stocks. Amanda must be
part of the case for Sara to get it.

2
 Test #2: If Amanda is not there, will Amanda’s interest be
harmed if she is not brought in?
Yes! It is Amanda’s stock. If she is not there, she will lose
half of it if Sara obtains a favorable judgment. Amanda
needs to be there to tell them not to take stock away.

Test #3: If Amanda is not there, will the current parties be

subject to inconsistent/multiple obligations?
Yes again. Pretend Sara wins and the Court orders XYZ to
cancel and reissue the stock so half of it is in Sara’s name.
But later, Amanda sues XYZ and she gets a judgment
ordering XYZ to keep 100% of the stock in her name. XYZ
would then be subject to inconsistent obligations.

Note: This is an “OR” situation. Not all three tests have to be met,
only one.

3. If a party is necessary, they also have to be feasible.

a. Feasible means:
i. Court has SMJ and
PJ over the party.

4. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the

court must determine if the court should proceed without the absent
party or dismiss the case altogether-
a. 4 Factors Balanced:
i. Rule 19(b)(1): To what extent a judgment rendered in the
person’s absence may Prejudice either the missing or
present parties-
ii. Rule 19(b)(2): To what extent a creative judgment could
lesson or avoid the prejudice-
iii. Rule 19(b)(3): Will a judgment in the person’s absence
be Adequate
iv. Rule 19(b)(4): Does the plaintiff have access to an
adequate Remedy if the case is dismissed for non-
joinder (AKA- do they have another place to go? File
Somewhere else?)-

b. How is the fact of nonjoinder raised?

i. By the plaintiff; 19(c)
ii. By the defendant; 12(b)(7)
iii. By the court; 19(a)(2)

3
II. Intervention (Rule 24):
c. Intervention allows third parties to join even if no other parties want them to join.
(crashing the party!)

Rule 24(a)- Intervention As of a Right.

d. Court MUST permit anyone to intervene who:
i. Has a right to intervene by a federal statute; OR
ii. Claims an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject matter of
the lawsuit and is so situated that disposing of the action as a practical matter
impairs intervenor’s rights without the intervenor’s participation
1. In other words, the absent party’s Interest will be harmed if the
absent party isn’t allowed to intervene.
“The intervening if they weren’t there this would impair there interest”
a. Think of our last example. If Amanda wants to intervene, would
Amanda’s interests be harmed if not allowed to intervene?
i. Yes, she would lose half of her stock if the court did not
allow her to intervene.

Rule 24(b)- Permissive Intervention.

e. Court MAY permit anyone to intervene who:
i. Has a right to intervene by a federal statute; OR
ii. Has a claim or defense that shares common questions of law or fact with
the main action;
1. Gives court wide discretion to allow intervention

III. Supplemental Jurisdiction

- Supplemental jurisdiction arises when some claims have subject matter jurisdiction
and others do not.
- Note: With supplemental jurisdiction, we are not talking about cases, we are talking
about additional claims (claims that are non-diverse/non-federal question claims) the
Plaintiff wants to bring in.

a. 28 USC § 1367 (a): where 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. Such supplemental
jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of
additional parties.

What does that mean in normal language?

4
  1367(a):
1. When a federal court has Original JX _ orginal case the court can
hear (federal question or diversity), the court also has jurisdiction over
related claims arising out of the Same case or controversy
1. Ex Gibbs wanting tho join state law claim under Federal
claim – the court had JX.

b. § 1367 (b): any claim where the district court has jurisdiction based on §1332
(diversity), the district court shall not have supplement jurisdiction under
subsection (a) over claims by the plaintiff against parties made under Rule 14
(impleader), 19 (required joinder), 20 (permissive joinder), 24 (intervention), or
over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 when
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with
the jurisdiction requirements of §1332
i. Imposes limits on claims by the plaintiff against other parties brought into
lawsuit
ii. We might take this supp Jx away if your claim applies certain criteria

What does that mean in normal language? Even if meet 1367 (a) – 1367 (b) CAN
TAKE IT AWAY!!!
 1367(b) will kill supplemental jurisdiction for certain claims:
1. Only applies to cases based Solely on diversity.
1. If the case got into federal court based on Federal
Question, do not even address (b)!
2. Only applies to claims brought by the Plaintiff.
3. In diversity cases, court shall not have supplemental jurisdiction
over claims Against Parties Brought in under Rule 14
(Impleader), 19 (Involuntary Joinder), 20 (permissive Joinder) , or
24 (Intervention).

 Ask yourself: TEST FOR SUPP JX

1. Did this case get into federal court based on diversity?
1. (If no, stop analysis.)
2. If yes, then ask is the claim being brought by the plaintiff?
1. (If being brought by defendant, then stop analysis.)
3. If yes, was the party against whom the plaintiff is asserting the
claim brought in under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24?
4. If yes, § 1367 (b) takes away supplemental jurisdiction for this
claim. (Court cant hear the claim)

5
 Hypo to practice:

Abby from Georgia --------(diversity only)------- Bob from California

| (Rule 14a)
($50K State law claim) ↓
Sam from Georgia

 In the hypo above, supplemental jurisdiction is Barred between Abby and

Sam under 1367(b), even though the claim relates under 1367(a)- because
Abby asserting a claim over Sam being brought by Rule 14.
 If original jurisdiction between Abby and Bob was based on Federal
Question, then supplemental jurisdiction Would apply to Abby’s claim
against Sam. 1367(b) only applies to cases that are solely founded on
1332.
c. § 1367 (c): a four factor test (originally found in Gibbs) used by courts in
deciding whether to grant supplemental jurisdiction.
i. Grants discretionary power to courts to Decline state claims
1. Is Novel or Complex issue of State Law – Fed ct will not touch
state law issues
2. New claim substantially Dominates over rest of case
3. The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction
a. No 1331 or 1332 claims remain (i.e., Only Claim left is one
that doesn’t meet Diversity)
4. In exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons to
decline jurisdiction (32. Catch all) – even if none above Met the
court can always decline it!

NOTE: Klein will almost always have a question on the final where supplemental jurisdiction
is not needed for the claim to be brought in. The claim will be able to come in on its own under
diversity or federal question. Do not let him fool you!

Answer would be no, don’t need Supp Jx because met by Diversity or Federal Q

6
 Practice Question:

Ryan, Nick, and Charlotte met to try and finalize and obtain a Yacht from Yuma, Arizona.
Unfortunately, the meeting went terrible. Ryan and Nick stormed out immediately, heading for
their respective vehicles. Several minutes later, Charlotte walked out of the building. While
waking to her car, Charlotte was caught between Ryan and Nick’s vehicle as they collided.
Charlotte was seriously injured. Nick and Ryan did escape without physical injury, but both
suffered significant damage to their cars.

Because of their longstanding friendship and business relationship, Charlotte does not want to
sue Ryan or Nick for breach of contract. Charlotte does, however, sue Ryan for her injuries,
claiming that Ryan was driving negligently, causing the accident. The suit is filed in federal
court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Note: Charlotte is from NV, Ryan is CA, and Nick is from AZ.

2. Assume that Charlotte has sued Ryan for negligence for $500,000, and that Ryan impleaded
Nick for contribution and indemnity. Ryan also added a negligence claim against Nick for his
own damages ($10,000) and a breach of contract claim for ($50,00). Over which of Ryan’s
claims does the federal court have jurisdiction?

A: Only the contribution and indemnity claim

B: The contribution and indemnity claim, and the negligence claim
C: The contribution and indemnity claim, and the negligence claim, and the breach of contract
claim
D: None of the claims: the two claims are below $75,000 and therefore, they do not have an
independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

24.