Supplemental Jurisdiction

Even if jurisdictionally deficient, fed. courts may nonetheless exercise

SuppJdx in certain cases
Separate the claims, identify the anchor and the additional claims.
The anchor absolutely must meet SMJ. If the anchor doesnt meet
SMJ, stop here. None of the claims can be brought before a federal
district court.
If the additional claim
Meets SMJ, stop here. You dont need SuppJdx cos that claim can
stand alone.
Dont meet SMJ dont despair; the additional claim may be
entitled to SuppJdx.
District court may grant SuppJdx to additional claims that:
Shares common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim, i.e.
claims must arise from
the same transaction or occurrence. Gibbs.
AND

Are not barred by 1367(b) (only if the anchor is based solely on

diversity jurisdiction.
If the anchor is based on FQ or hybrid, you already get SuppJdx):
Must not fall under one of these joinder scenarios:
Original P asserts claims against person made parties under
R. 14, 19, 20, 24; OR
New people joining themselves under R. 19 or 24;
AND

Must meet AIC requirement and preserve complete diversity.

[After review session, put special rules on aggregation here.]

EXAM TIPS CHECKLIST

Permissive counterclaim (R. 13) never gets SuppJdx because by
definition it doesnt arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Fails
at 1367(a).

Erie
Which law should a federal court, sitting in diversity, apply? State or federal
law?
IF THE FEDERAL LAW IS
(A) A FEDERAL STATUTE or the FRCP, if satisfies Hanna II below,
STATUTE/FRCP.

Hanna II /
REA

USE

i. Valid, i.e.
1. rationally classifiable as rules of procedure (arguably
procedural)
2. doesnt abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive right
ii. On point, i.e.
1. sufficiently broad to control the issue before the
court. Armco.
2. tip: read the fed. rule narrowly to avoid direct collision.

(B) FED. CL (uniquely fed. interests: bankruptcy, admiralty, antitrust,

intstate/intl stuff), USE FED. CL b/c protection of fed. interests prefer
uniformity to multiplicity of outcome. Outside of Erie.
(C) FED. JUDGE-MADE PROCEDURAL PRACTICE (e.g., laches in Guaranty Trust)
or if answered NOT VALID/ON POINT for step (A) above GO TO THE
MURKY WATERS OF ERIE.
IF THE FED. LAW IS
pure substance /
bound up

a form and mode

of enforcing

STATE LAW WINS

EVALUATE HANNA I
Defines rights & obligations.
BOP & SOL under state-made COA are
substantive!
Does applying the federal directive lead to
Erie
/
1. Forum
shopping at the outset of the
Is there a countervailing
RDA
case;
reason to apply
2. Inequitable administration of the
federal law? E.g.,
uniformity of
law?
federal policy; right to jury
trial.
NO
YES
EVALUATE
FED. LAW WINS
NO
YES
BYRD
STATE LAW WINS FED. LAW WINS
Standard of care (tort)

State. Erie (substantive).

Conflict of laws
SOL
Tolling SOL
Door-closing law
Bond-posting law
W/C law barring jury trial
Substituted service
Class-actionability

State. Klaxon (want uniformity of law)

State. Guaranty Trust.
State. Triple Play; Armco (reading FRCP narrowly).
State. Triple Play.
State. Triple Play.
Fed. 7th Am. right takes primacy. Byrd.
Fed. Hanna.
Fed. Shady Grove.

EXAM TIPS CHECKLIST

Always analyze the Hanna II and the Erie prongs.
When evaluating if fed. rule is on point, dont weigh in state
legislatures objective or purpose. SCALIA (4) in Shady Grove said the
state legislatures intent would never override the text of the statute. But
STEVENS (1) and GINSBURG (4) would allow us to peek behind the text and
see if state law has important objective.

Preclusion
Which law should a federal court, sitting in diversity, apply? State or federal
law?
IF

THE FEDERAL LAW IS

Erie fed ct hearing DIVERSITY cases must APPLY THE SUBST LAW OF THE ST in
which it sits.
What kind of fed Rs? Fed CL (presumed valid, Suprmcy Cl, want
uniformity of outcome); fed stat; FRCP; judge-made proced practice (e.g.,
laches, Guar Trust).
Describe the conflict between fed & st Rs with respect to the issue.
REA/Hanna II: apply fed R if
on point fed R covers the issue? Cong intent: set a min. std or a
natl uniform rule? Cover both sides, read fed R narrowly (Armco),
dont weigh in st leg. intent (Scalia, Shady Grove);
valid (rationally clssfble as (arguably) proced; cant abridge, enlarge,
modify any subst rt [change ptys daily/primary activities? incidental
effect is OK]).
RDA/Erie:
pure subst/bound up or forms & mode? [elements, COL/BOP/SOL are
subst Rs];
does fed R detmne the outcomeinduce forum shopg at the outset &
produce inequitable admin of the laws? Goal: avoid diff. outcomes due
to citizsp status. If N: fed R wins.
If prev answer was Y, do the Byrd interest balancing: any fed
countervailg poly?