Supplemental jurisdiction

Last updated

Supplemental jurisdiction, also sometimes known as ancillary jurisdiction or pendent jurisdiction, is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C.   § 1367 is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction ( Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger , 437 U.S. 365 (1978)) and pendent jurisdiction ( United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715 (1966)) and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction (Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989)).

Contents

Historically there was a distinction between pendent jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction. But, under the ruling in Exxon, that distinction is no longer meaningful. Supplemental jurisdiction refers to the various ways a federal court may hear either: state law claims, claims from parties who lack the amount in controversy requirement of diversity jurisdiction, when defendants are joined in claims, or when multiple plaintiffs are joined in claims, like in class action suits.

Definition

By default, courts have supplemental jurisdiction over "all other claims that are so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy." [1] The true test being that the new claim "arises from the same set of operative facts." [2] This means a federal court hearing a federal claim can also hear substantially related state law claims, thereby encouraging efficiency by only having one trial at the federal level rather than one trial in federal court and another in state court. However, if the case is brought as a diversity action (i.e., the basis for federal jurisdiction is that each defendant comes from a state different from each plaintiff), there generally is no supplemental jurisdiction if such claims would destroy complete diversity. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. Courts are also free to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in specified or exceptional circumstances (§ 1367(c)).

Pendent jurisdiction

Pendent jurisdiction is the authority of a United States federal court to hear a closely related state law claim against a party already facing a federal claim, described by the Supreme Court as "jurisdiction over nonfederal claims between parties litigating other matters properly before the court." [3] Such jurisdiction is granted to encourage both "economy in litigation", [4] and fairness by eliminating the need for a separate federal and state trial hearing essentially the same facts yet potentially reaching opposite conclusions.

Pendent jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to adjudicate claims it could not otherwise hear. The related concept of pendent party jurisdiction by contrast is the court's authority to adjudicate claims against a party not otherwise under the court's jurisdiction because the claim arises from the same nucleus of facts as another claim properly before the court.

The leading case on pendent jurisdiction is United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715 (1966). Gibbs has been read to require that (1) there must be a federal claim (whether from the Constitution, federal statute, or treaty) and (2) the non-federal claim arises "from a common nucleus of operative fact" such that a plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding."

The holding in Gibbs has been essentially codified by Congress along with ancillary jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C.   § 1367, its supplemental jurisdiction statute. However, Subsection §1367(c)(3) expressly authorizes the district court to dismiss a supplemental claim when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. [5]

Ancillary jurisdiction

Ancillary jurisdiction is a form of supplemental jurisdiction that allows a United States federal court to hear non-federal claims sufficiently logically dependent on a federal "anchor claim" (i.e., a federal claim serving as the basis for supplemental jurisdiction), despite that such courts would otherwise lack jurisdiction over such claims. Ancillary jurisdiction differs from pendent jurisdiction in that pendent jurisdiction requires the federal and non-federal claims to arise from a "common nucleus of operative fact," (per United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs ) not to be logically interdependent. Like pendent jurisdiction, a federal court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction if the anchor claim has original federal jurisdiction either through federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Areas where ancillary jurisdiction can be asserted include counterclaims (Fed. R. Civ. P. 13), cross-claims (Fed. R. Civ. P. 13), impleader (Fed. R. Civ. P. 14), interpleader (Fed. R. Civ. P. 22) and interventions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24). Impleader claims are a paradigmatic example of ancillary jurisdiction, given the tendency of such claims to arise under state contract law, but be entirely dependent on the original claim.

Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange and Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger are seminal cases relating to ancillary jurisdiction.

Ancillary jurisdiction has been replaced entirely by supplemental jurisdiction, per 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), part of the U.S. supplemental jurisdiction statute.

Case law

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal jurisdiction (United States)</span> Legal scope of the powers of the U.S. federal government

Federal jurisdiction refers to the legal scope of the government's powers in the United States of America.

Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Subject-matter jurisdiction</span> Type of jurisdictional court authority

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abstention doctrine</span>

An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a United States court may apply to refuse to hear a case if hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court. Such doctrines are usually invoked where lawsuits involving the same issues are brought in two different court systems at the same time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives U.S. federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a U.S. federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, U.S. federal courts will normally lack the power to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

<i>Erie</i> doctrine

The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question must apply state substantive law.

Amount in controversy is a term used in civil procedure to denote the amount at stake in a lawsuit, in particular in connection with a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount before that court may hear the case.

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure that would eventually become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the later case of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462. The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal question jurisdiction</span> Type of U.S. court subject-matter jurisdiction

In United States law, federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. The federal question jurisdiction statute is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Removal jurisdiction</span>

In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal.

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides a private cause of action to victims of employment discrimination. The Court ruled that Title VII's "employee-numerosity requirement," which limits potential defendants to those maintaining at least fifteen employees, is not a limit on a court's jurisdiction to hear Title VII claims. The requirement is instead a substantive element of a Title VII claim, which means that a defendant must raise the issue prior to verdict or the requirement will be waived.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.

Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the civil procedure subject of ancillary jurisdiction.

In law, the venue is the location where a case is heard.

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and by what means federal courts are obliged to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The question in the instant case was whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing service of process should yield to state rules governing the service of process in diversity cases. The Court ruled that under the facts of this case, federal courts shall apply the federal rule. The decision was drafted by John Hart Ely, who was then a law clerk for Earl Warren.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once. This case was decided before the existence of the current supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

In the United States federal courts, pendent party jurisdiction refers to a court's power to adjudicate a claim against a party who would otherwise not be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, because the claim arose from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.

References

  1. ↑ 28 U.S. Code § 1367. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1367
  2. ↑ United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715 (1966).
  3. ↑ Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).
  4. ↑ Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 366 F.3d 569 (7th Cir.2004.)
  5. ↑ "28 U.S. Code § 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2021-06-08.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.