- Prevent waste of resources by adjudicating same or related federal and state claims in single action.
- Preserve opportunity for federal claimants to have federal questions answered in federal court.
- 1. Does state law claim share a "common nucleus of operative facts" with federal claims?
- Note: Article III provides jurisdiction over cases/controversies, not claims. Multiple claims make up one case/controversy. See also § 1367.
- 2. Is establishing supplemental jurisdiction consistent with interests of judicial economy, fairness and convenience?
Federal anchor claim? (§ 1367):
- (a) Federal jurisdiction over one claim = federal jurisdiction over entire case/controversy.
- If federal court declines, can refile in state court. If original fed filing based on subsection (a), statute of limitation is 30 days after case is dismissed.
- (b): Diversity claims only:
- No jurisdiction jurisdiction over joinder Δs if tacking those people on would "contaminate" complete diversity.
- Sloppily written rule intended to limit cases over which fed cts have jx, but doesn’t include language for joinder defendants
- Language "claims by πs over persons made parties by rules 14, 19, 20, 24"
- Doesn’t apply to portion of the rule that applies to Δs.
- Rule 14: original Δ may act as third-party π to bring another Δ into the suit; original π may bring in another Δ if original Δ counterclaims
- Rule 19: when appropriate, court can allow (or require) non-parties to be joined as π or Δ
- Rule 20: joinder rule for π and Δ (that πs may be J&S eligible for relief; Δs may be J&S liable for judgment)
- Rule 24: when permitted, non-party can intervene as π or Δ
- (c): Courts can refuse jurisdiction if state claim is complex (not complicated, rather that uncertainty in law means state courts should set precedent), if state claim predominates, if federal claims are dismissed, etc.
