Subject Matter Supplemental Jurisdiction

Question 1

Where are you going to sue?

Answer 1

In a court with: 1. SMJ (federal question; diversity; supplemental); (2) personal j; (3) proper venue

Question 2

supplemental j

Answer 2

a second claim that is being brought in the lawsuit that piggy backs on either a federal question or diversity jurisdiction claim.

Question 3

steps for supp j.

Answer 3

Steps: (1) see if anything to piggy back onto; (2) 1367(a): whether there is a common nucleus of operative fact; (3) 1367(c): any reason court would not exercise sup j.

Question 4

28 USC § 1367(a)

Answer 4

1. Can have sup j over a claim when the claim arises out of the same common nucleus of operative fact as the federal question or the diversity claim does
   a. Same evidence: docs, witnesses; same core facts; same damages
   b. Focus: efficiency, but don’t want unwieldy litigation

Question 5

1367(b)

Answer 5

1. comes into play when have a diversity claim

Question 6

1367(c)

Answer 6

1. the district court may decline to exercise sup j over a claim under subsection (a) if:
   a. 1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law,
   b. 2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which it has original jurisdiction,
   c. 3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
   d. 4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction

Question 7

In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co.

Answer 7

Woman got a mortgage and used someone to get an appraisal. Thought it was too high. Brought a federal question claim under the Truth and Lending Act and a state claim. Documents and witnesses may not be similar but the damages are. However, no precedent in the state (first time rule applied to an appraiser), so court used their discretion to not hear it in federal court.

Question 8

iii. Szendrey-Ramos

Answer 8

Pl (general counsel for a bank) uncovered unethical dealings of the bank and was then fired. Pl sued for violation of 2 fed employment laws & 4 Puerto Rico constitutional claims. Though facts seem to arise out of termination, novel issue for Puerto Rico and state claims are substantially predominant. No sup j.