A sues B, in a valid diversity action in federal court(+75k and complete diversity). B then has a third party claims against C , for contribution. Under joinder 18(a), B wants to add another claim against C, for damages in an unrelated claim. 1367(a) dictates that a "same case and controversy " standard controls supplemental juris.
Does 1367(a) bar that "18(a)" claim between B and C because of the" same case and controversy" standard?
I think it does. What bothers me about this question is that it is
properly joined , but no SMJ/ SUPP J over that claim. (yes this is
simliar to Krista Millea case )
You don't say this, but I am assuming B and C are not diverse. If they are diverse, you don't need to look at § 1367.
If they are not diverse, then you are correct--FRCP 18(a) would be satisfied, but the court lacks jurisdiction over the claim, so the claim cannot be brought. We discussed this in class--about how the requirements of jurisdiction limit what a party can bring under FRCP 18(a), just as they might limit whether a defendant can bring a permissive counterclaim (especially in those courts that do not treat "same case or controversy" as different than "same transaction or occurrence").
Why should this bother you? The Federal Rules can't expand jurisdiction.
Note that this is not like the hypothetical claim by Krista Millea. Because she is diverse from Wal-Mart, should could add her products claim under 18(a) and there would be diversity jurisdiction. The better example we used was Godin suing the Board for money owed on her contract for her first year teaching, which is unrelated to her due process claims, and where there is no diversity.