Friday audio--Section A, Section B. Essay # 7 will post on Wednesday, April 2, due Wednesday April 9.
Review the primer on federal question jurisdiction, along with § 1331 and Glannon pp. 25-30. You will need to have a basic grasp of "arising under" jurisdiction to understand supplemental jurisdiction. What federal claims do we see in VOA and in Godin?
We move to Supplemental Jurisdiction, which involves § 1367, an unfortunately confusing statute. Prep everything to cover Wednesday and Thursday. Review your notes from earlier in the semester on the definition of a claim, FRCP 8(a)(1), and joinder under FRCP 13, 14, 18, and 20.
• Is there supplemental jurisdiction in VOA and in Godin and why?
• Is there supplemental jurisdiction over Winston's counterclaims and why? Does it matter to whether the court can hear this counterclaim?
• What might cause the court to decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c) and what facts might the court consider?
• When should the parties and court rely on § 1367(a) and how does that reveal problems with how VOA pleaded its citizenship?
• Why is it preferable to establish diversity jurisdiction rather than rely on § 1367?
• Ford says § 1367(a) reaches the limits of Article III. What does that mean?
• What is the connection between § 1367(a)'s standard and the standard for joinder in FRCP 13(a), (b), and (g); 14(a), and 20? There are 3 logical possibilities--what are they and which does Jones adopt? What does that mean for the counterclaim in Jones? What about the counterclaim in Kinsmann?
• Recall the (fictional) prior-contract claim between VOA and BSO. Can it be joined under the rules? Is there jurisdiction? How does the answer change if Sohm is a California citizen and the only member of VOA or if VOA has another member who is a Massachusetts citizen.
• Does § 1367(b) apply in Godin? What are the "jurisdictional requirements" of § 1332?
• § 1367(b) identifies 3 categories of cases in which there is no supplemental jurisdiction. What do they have in common? Does § 1367(b) limit supplemental jurisdictional in the following (assume joinder is proper in all):
• A (FL) sues X (CA) and Y (CA). X files a cross claim against Y. Y impleads its insurer, M (CA).
• A (IA) v. X (NE). X (NE) impleads M (IA). A wants to file a claim against M.
• A (NJ) & B (DE) v. Walmart (DE/AR).
(See also the discussion in Glannon on this problem, especially as to the amount in controversy)
