Federal civil procedure - supplemental jurisdiction - Seventh Circuit holds that 28 U.S.C. 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over permissively joined plaintiffs in diversity suits. - Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc., 77 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 1996)
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc. is unconvincing in its doctrinal interpretation of the distinction drawn between Rule 19 and Rule 20 plaintiffs by the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of section 1367, but its judicial economy justifications are valid. When section 1367 is applied to diversity suits, supplemental jurisdiction can be exercised over permissively joined plaintiffs under Rule 20 but not necessary plaintiffs under Rule 19. The Court attempted to rationalize the distinct based on the threat each type of plaintiff posed to complete diversity.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Class actions - class certification of mass torts - Fifth Circuit decertifies nationwide tobacco class. - Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996)
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on the uncodified maturity requirement for certification of mass tort class actions instead of the express standards of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to decertify the class in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. The class was suing the tobacco industry for failing to disclose the addictive qualities of tobacco and the practice of manipulating nicotine levels. Despite noting that negative value claims are well-suited to class action, the Court found that the claims were immature because there was little established case law.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Civil procedure - supplemental jurisdiction and class actions - Fifth Circuit holds that absent class members are not required to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement in a diversity-based class action. - In re Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 1995)
Article Abstract:
The textualist interpretation of 28 U.S.C. 1367 taken by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Abbott Laboratories so completely disregards clear congressional intent that the court effectively violates the separation of powers. The ruling allowed a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction over class action members that did not meet the $50,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. In enacting section 1367 to enact supplemental jurisdiction, Congress explicitly stated that diversity jurisdiction requirements were not intended to be altered.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Federal jurisdiction is addressed. Court preserves the privileges of the dead; in its procedural decisions, the court breaks no new ground and declines to create new doctrine
- Abstracts: Order-flow payments get new scrutiny. The 5th Circuit's approval of a no-opt-out, mass tort settlement that forecloses the rights of future claimants raises basic due process issues
- Abstracts: Long-term care insurance: a product for today. Genetic information and risk classification in individual life and health insurance
- Abstracts: Recapturing short-term investments; venture capitalists should maximize their exit rights in good times as well as bad
- Abstracts: Ill. workplace monitoring law: friend of Big Brother? Union says eavesdropping law allows bosses to listen in on private conversations. A privacy advocate has doubts