If π1 (Nevada) and π2 (Nevada) sue ∆ (Colorado) for a car crash, can π1 sue π2 for indemnity?

If π1 (Nevada) and π2 (Nevada) sue ∆ (Colorado) for a car crash, can π1 sue π2 for indemnity?

• A. Yes - based on common ground
• B. No - § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction
• C. Yes - if both agree
• D. No - it requires a different filing

Answer: (B)

The question involves determining whether π1 can sue π2 for indemnity in the context of a lawsuit where both π1 and π2 are from Nevada and ∆ is from Colorado. The correct answer indicates that § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction in this situation. Under § 1367(b), when a original plaintiff (π1) brings a diversity action in federal court, they cannot join additional parties as plaintiffs if doing so would destroy the complete diversity required for federal jurisdiction. Since both π1 and π2 are citizens of Nevada, allowing π1 to sue π2 would create a situation where both plaintiffs are from the same state. This would violate the diversity jurisdiction requirements of federal courts. Therefore, π1 cannot assert a claim against π2 for indemnity, as it would introduce a new claim between parties from the same state that does not fulfill the diversity requirement, effectively barring it under the rules governing supplemental jurisdiction. Understanding this principle clarifies the limitations imposed on plaintiffs when it comes to joining additional claims or parties, particularly in cases of diversity jurisdiction.

The question involves determining whether π1 can sue π2 for indemnity in the context of a lawsuit where both π1 and π2 are from Nevada and ∆ is from Colorado. The correct answer indicates that § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction in this situation.

Under § 1367(b), when a original plaintiff (π1) brings a diversity action in federal court, they cannot join additional parties as plaintiffs if doing so would destroy the complete diversity required for federal jurisdiction. Since both π1 and π2 are citizens of Nevada, allowing π1 to sue π2 would create a situation where both plaintiffs are from the same state. This would violate the diversity jurisdiction requirements of federal courts.

Therefore, π1 cannot assert a claim against π2 for indemnity, as it would introduce a new claim between parties from the same state that does not fulfill the diversity requirement, effectively barring it under the rules governing supplemental jurisdiction.

Understanding this principle clarifies the limitations imposed on plaintiffs when it comes to joining additional claims or parties, particularly in cases of diversity jurisdiction.