Ancillary jurisdiction
Barron's Law Dictionary:
Top
Ancillary jurisdiction
The jurisdiction assumed by federal courts, largely as a matter of convenience to the parties, which extends beyond that conferred upon them expressly by the Constitution or by enabling statutes.
Under the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, it is recognized “that a district court acquires jurisdiction of a case or controversy in its entirety and may as an incident to disposition of a matter properly before it, possess jurisdiction to decide other matters raised by the case of which it could not take cognizance were they independently presented. Thus when the court has jurisdiction of the principal action, it may hear also any ancillary proceeding therein, regardless of the citizenship of the parties, the amount in controversy, or any other factor that would normally determine jurisdiction.” Wright, Law of Federal Courts §9 (6th ed.
2002). The most common example of ancillary jurisdiction is represented by compulsory counterclaims, which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly require the defendant to bring and which accordingly have been held cognizable without regard to an independent federal jurisdictional basis.
See, e.g., 286 F. 2d 631.
Permissive counterclaims are probably not within the federal courts’ ancillary jurisdiction and independent jurisdictional bases must be established. 597 F. 2d 798, 812.
Cross-claims, impleader of third parties, interpleader , and intervention as of right are further examples of ancillary jurisdiction. Wright, supra.
§9.
Joinder of claims (federal and nonfederal grounds) is not within ancillary jurisdiction unless the claims are so closely related as to fall within the concept of pendent jurisdiction. It is generally held that where ancillary jurisdiction suffices to allow a particular claim or party to be joined in the lawsuit without an independent jurisdictional basis, it is not necessary to satisfy the venue requirements with respect to such a claim or party. See, e.g., 174 F. Supp. 587; but see 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1164.
Under the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, it is recognized “that a district court acquires jurisdiction of a case or controversy in its entirety and may as an incident to disposition of a matter properly before it, possess jurisdiction to decide other matters raised by the case of which it could not take cognizance were they independently presented. Thus when the court has jurisdiction of the principal action, it may hear also any ancillary proceeding therein, regardless of the citizenship of the parties, the amount in controversy, or any other factor that would normally determine jurisdiction.” Wright, Law of Federal Courts §9 (6th ed.
2002). The most common example of ancillary jurisdiction is represented by compulsory counterclaims, which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly require the defendant to bring and which accordingly have been held cognizable without regard to an independent federal jurisdictional basis.
See, e.g., 286 F. 2d 631.
Permissive counterclaims are probably not within the federal courts’ ancillary jurisdiction and independent jurisdictional bases must be established. 597 F. 2d 798, 812.
Cross-claims, impleader of third parties, interpleader , and intervention as of right are further examples of ancillary jurisdiction. Wright, supra.
§9.
Joinder of claims (federal and nonfederal grounds) is not within ancillary jurisdiction unless the claims are so closely related as to fall within the concept of pendent jurisdiction. It is generally held that where ancillary jurisdiction suffices to allow a particular claim or party to be joined in the lawsuit without an independent jurisdictional basis, it is not necessary to satisfy the venue requirements with respect to such a claim or party. See, e.g., 174 F. Supp. 587; but see 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1164.
Related Videos:
Top
Ancillary jurisdiction
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Top
Ancillary jurisdiction
Ancillary jurisdiction allows a United States federal court to hear certain claims sufficiently related to the original claim that would otherwise defeat the court's jurisdiction. Whereas pendent jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear state claims sufficiently related to an original federal claim, ancillary jurisdiction applies when the parties are in federal court because of diversity (i.e., each defendant is from a state different than each plaintiff) and one party wants to bring a claim against another party (possibly a third-party) which would otherwise defeat that diversity. For example, a California resident (the plaintiff) might sue a New York resident (the defendant) in federal court based on diversity but the New York resident wants to implead his New-York-based insurance company, an action which by itself has no diversity (and therefore the federal court has no independent subject matter jurisdiction) because the Third-party Plaintiff (defendant in the original action) and the insurance company (Third-party Defendant) are from the same state. Ancillary jurisdiction allows the federal court to continue hearing the case despite this lack of diversity because bringing in the insurance company is sufficiently related to and necessary for the fair conclusion of the claim.
There are two important restraints on ancillary jurisdiction. First, the additional non-federal claim must be sufficiently related to the original claim ("ancillary and dependent" rather than "new and independent"). Compulsory claims, claims which must be heard in the present case or they will be lost, are especially likely to be heard. Second, a court is far more likely to grant ancillary jurisdiction to a claim asserted by the defendant rather than the plaintiff because the plaintiff chose the court in which to bring their case whereas the defendant was forced into the plaintiff's choice of legal forum. This preference for defendants helps prevent a plaintiff from getting into federal court through suing one diverse defendant and simply impleading in the necessary non-diverse parties.
Areas where ancillary jurisdiction can be asserted include counterclaims (Fed. R. Civ. P. 13), cross-claims (Fed. R. Civ. P. 13), impleader (Fed. R. Civ. P. 14), interpleader (Fed. R. Civ. P. 22) and interventions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24).
The seminal case on ancillary jurisdiction is Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978), and the holding of that case has now been codified by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), part of its supplemental jurisdiction statute.
Sources
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978).
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
Barron's Law Dictionary
Law Dictionary. Copyright © 2003 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read more
