In class, we discussed this puzzle:
A (NJ) + B (DE) v. X (DE)
We explained that this case is not covered by the text of § 1367(b), which does not include "claims by plaintiffs joined under Rule 20." But the Court nevertheless said no jurisdiction. Given the fundamental nature of the complete diversity requirement (no reason for a federal forum with less than complete diversity), § 1332 is not satisfied absent complete diversity. Since § 1332 is not satisfied, the court lacks "original jurisdiction" and thus lacks supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a). And it was necessary to do this, lest an obvious drafting error blow up Strawbridge.
Several alert readers expressed confusion at this, pointing to a discrepancy between that and the final problem in the Glannon reading on supplemental jurisdiction. Glannon offers a version of this:
A (NJ) ($ 1.5 m) + B (NJ) ($ 30k) v. X (DE).
This presents the same problem as the one we discussed in class--one of § 1322's "jurisdictional requirements" is missing in an action involving plaintiffs joined under Rule 20. The difference is that the missing requirement is not complete diversity but amount-in-controversy--one of the plaintiffs does not meet the jurisdictional minimum (recall that each plaintiff must seek > $ 75k from each defendant).
As Glannon explains, the Court in Exxon said there was supplemental jurisdiction over B's claim, since that combination is not listed in § 1367(b)'s exclusion.
So how do we square that with the problem from class? Exxon explained that the complete diversity requirement is so fundamental that § 1332(a) is not satisfied without it. But the no-aggregation rule is less fundamental. The point of the AiC requirement is to ensure only "big cases" go to federal court. This case is "big" because A seeks millions of dollars, even if B seeks less than the jurisdictional minimum. So § 1332 is satisfied by complete diversity; we excuse supplemental jurisdiction over the one small claim because § 1367(b) does not address this line-up.
Does that seem absurd? Absolutely. As Justice Ginsburg argued in dissent in Exxon, § 1332(a) by its terms does not create a hierarchy of elements.
Fortunately, this does not arise all that often for two reasons:
1) It is relatively rare that a plaintiff cannot meet the AiC requirement. Absent clear law or obviously minor injuries, it rarely "appears beyond doubt" plaintiff cannot recover more than $ 75k. Most defendants don't really contest it.
2) (More important): This problem only arises in a case of multiple plaintiffs against one defendant. Once we add additional defendants (joined pursuant to Rule 20), the case falls within the first category in § 1367(b): Claims by plaintiffs against persons made party under Rule 20, which is expressly excluded from supp jur.
Sometimes confusion is good. It means you are understanding things, so that stuff that does not fit causes confusion.
