Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating “[i]t is axiomatic that the federal judiciary’s diversity jurisdiction depends on complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.”
• \It is axiomatic that the federal judiciary's diversity jurisdiction depends on complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.\
• district court would have supplemental jurisdiction, despite the common citizenship of the defendant/third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant
• “We have twice held that in a diversity action, the district court has jurisdiction over a defendant’s counterclaim against non- diverse parties joined as third-party defendants to the counterclaim.”
• ‘The plain language of § 1367(b) limits supplemental jurisdiction over claims of plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, and of parties who join or intervene as plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 19 or 24.” (emphasis and quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).