Abstract

Professor Steinman explores the interplay of the supplemental jurisdiction statute and § 1441 removal. The Author concludes that § 1367 applies to cases removed to federal court but that, when a removable diversity action has been filed, § 1367(b) permits federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all claims filed pre-removal that form part of the same Article III case or controversy. She argues that, in pendent party situations, defendants against whom only state law claims have been pleaded should not be able to thwart removal by refusing to join the removal notice, and that, despite the invocation of federal jurisdiction by defendants, the doctrines that limit supplemental jurisdiction in cases commenced in federal court should lead to the same outcomes in removed cases unless plaintiffs can establish that they did not act strategically in filing in state court as a first step in a series of events calculated to obtain federal jurisdiction. When plaintiffs make that showing, however, the courts should construe § 1367 to empower them to assert supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims that would be beyond their authority if the case had been commenced in federal court initially. The Article also concludes that § 1367(b) is not flawed in authorizing supplemental jurisdiction over claims asserted by defendants after removal.

How to Cite