Patricia, a citizen of New York, ate dinner one night at a restaurant operated i
ID: 2591574 • Letter: P
Question
Patricia, a citizen of New York, ate dinner one night at a restaurant operated in New York by David, a citizen of Connecticut. For dessert, Patricia had an apple pie bought by David from Terry, a New York citizen who is in the business of baking and selling pies to restaurants. Patricia became violently ill shortly thereafter, and tests indicated that the pie contained botulism. After months of hospitalization, Patricia commenced a product liability action in New York federal district court against David. Her claim is for $100,000. David then impleaded Terry as a third-party defendant pursuant to Federal Rule 14, asserting that if he is liable to Patricia, Terry is liable to him. (This represents a correct statement by David of the applicable substantive rule in a product liability action brought against a restaurateur who makes a claim over against his suppliers.) Patricia then made a product liability claim against Terry for $200,000, as allowed by Federal Rule 14. Terry now moves to dismiss Patricia's claim against her for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Also, Thad has now moved to dismiss David's third chlaim against him on similar grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court decide the two motions? A. Grant Terry's motion but not That's because the Patricia-v-Terry claim does not fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction but the David-v-Thad does. B. It should grant Thad's motion but not Terry's because the the David-v-Thad claim does not fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction but the Patricia v-vTerry claim does. C. It should not grant either motion because they both fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. D. It should grant both motions, because neither claims fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.
Explanation / Answer
ans) option (A) Grant Terry's motion but not That's because the Patricia-v-Terry claim does not fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction but the David-v-Thad does.
A claim by the original plaintiff against the third-party defendant does not fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction, so it must have independent jurisdictional grounds. §1367(b) excludes certain claims made by plaintiffs when the original claim is based on diversity. By specifically precluding claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, §1367(b) preserves the result of Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978). Terry is a third-party defendant. In the absence of a federal question and in the absence of supplemental jurisdiction, Patricia and Terry must be citizens of different states, which they are not. Consequently, the court has no jurisdiction over Patricia's claim against Terry, and it must be dismissed. Observe that there is a good rationale for denying supplemental treatment to Patricia's claim against Terry: Patricia would not have been able to institute an initial suit against both David and Terry, because of the lack of diversity between Patricia and Terry; it seems improper to allow Patricia to do indirectly (by dropping Terry from the initial suit, waiting for David to implead Terry as he will surely do, then making a third-party claim against Terry) what she may not do directly.