Joinder of Claims

1418 Words6 Pages
*The concept of supplemental Jurisdiction grows in complexity once we recognize that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate lawsuits in which the party structure is more complex than the “A v. B” lawsuit. *Joinder Rules such as FRCP 14, 18, and 20 are rules of pleading – they specify the kinds of party and claim structures that are permitted in litigation in federal court. However, these rules don’t purport to control the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts – just because these rules permit a plaintiff to bring two different claims against a defendant does not tell us anything about whether there is federal jurisdiction over either or both claims in the case. -FRCP 18: Joinder of Claims -permits a plaintiff to…show more content…
on and Vierling Steel Co (K’s place of work) *High power transmission lines: once owned by Omaha Public Power District (a public corporation of state of Nebraska), but then sold the lines and equipment to Kroger’s place of work and subsequently sold electricity to K’s place of work and made repairs when they were requested Procedural History: Kroger’s lawyer sues Omaha Public Power (state court?) for wrongful death Omaha Power decides to implead Owen Equipment Omaha Power successfully seeks summary judgment (b/c Paxton and Vierling owned power lines, Omaha Power has no responsibility unless notified, and they weren’t notified) Kroger’s lawyer asserts wrongful death claim against Owen Equipment and goes for federal court claiming diversity jurisdiction b/c Kroger from Iowa and Owen Equipment is Nebraska corporation with principal place of business there) trial begins but Owen Equipment says no diversity because though incorporated in Nebraska, principal place of business is in Iowa district court refuses to grant Owen’s motion to dismiss and Kroger wins jury verdict (court says supplemental jurisdiction extends to Kroger’s claim against Owen) Owen appeals judgment reversed in favor of Owen Issue: Whether a court can hear a plaintiff's claim against a third-party defendant when there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim in an action in which federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, a circumstance called ancillary
Open Document