Ancillary Jurisdiction Legal Definition


Secondary jurisdiction may be exercised in two situations: (1) the additional non-federal claim must be sufficiently related to the original claim, that is, the non-federal claim must be incidental and dependent on the original claim; or (2) the ancillary claim is claimed by the defendant and not by the plaintiff. A court is more willing to override ancillary jurisdiction over a defendant`s ancillary claims, since it is the plaintiff who has chosen the court before which he or she wishes to present his or her case, while the defendant has been forced to choose the plaintiff. Participation in Gibbs was essentially codified by Congress with ancillary jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, its Additional Jurisdiction Act. However, subsection 1367(c)(3) expressly authorizes the District Court to dismiss a supplementary action if the District Court has dismissed all claims for which it originally had jurisdiction. [5] Historically, there has been a distinction between pending and ancillary jurisdiction. But after Exxon, that distinction no longer makes sense. Additional jurisdiction refers to the different ways a federal court can hear: claims under state law, claims by parties who do not have the amount of the controversial diversity jurisdiction requirement, whether defendants are related in the claims, or if multiple plaintiffs are related in claims, such as in class actions. Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange and Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger are historical cases related to subsidiary jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction is a form of additional jurisdiction that allows a U.S.

federal court to hear non-federal claims that, logically, are sufficiently dependent on a federal “anchor claim” (i.e., a federal claim that serves as the basis for additional jurisdiction), although those courts would otherwise have no jurisdiction over such claims. Ancillary jurisdiction differs from pending jurisdiction in that pending jurisdiction requires that federal and non-federal claims arise from a “common core of operational facts” (according to United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs) so as not to be logically dependent on each other. Similar to the Pendent jurisdiction, a federal court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction if the main claim has original federal jurisdiction, either through its jurisdiction over federal matters or through its jurisdiction over diversity. The concept of ancillary jurisdiction, as well as the concept of pending jurisdiction, is codified in the Supplementary Jurisdiction Act: 28 USCA § 1367. that they are part of the same case or controversy. [1] The real test is that the new claim “results from the same operational facts.” [2] This means that a federal court hearing a federal lawsuit can also hear essentially related claims under state law, thereby promoting efficiency by conducting only one proceeding at the federal level and not one trial in a federal court and another in a state court. However, if the case is filed as a diversity lawsuit (i.e., The basis of federal jurisdiction is that each defendant is from a different state than each plaintiff), there is usually no additional jurisdiction if such claims destroy a complete diversity.

See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. Courts are also free to refuse to exercise additional jurisdiction in specific or exceptional circumstances (Article 1367 (c)). Ancillary jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to rule on matters and claims for which the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction, but which are related to an application that is duly before the court. For example, if a plaintiff brings an action in federal court on the basis of its jurisdiction over federal matters, the defendant may make a counterclaim that raises a question of state law for which the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction. Areas in which ancillary jurisdiction may be invoked include counterclaims (Fed. R. Civ. p.

13), counterclaims (Fed. R. Civ. p. 13), Impleader (Fed. R. Civ. p. 14), Interpleader (Fed.

R. Civ. p. 22) and interventions (Fed. R. Civ. p. 24). Impleader claims are a paradigmatic example of a secondary jurisdiction, as such claims tend to arise under state contract law, but depend entirely on the original claim. n. A term used in federal courts when the court decides matters that do not normally fall within federal jurisdiction so that it can rule on the entire controversy when the primary issue is a federal matter that it is legally empowered to decide.

The additional jurisdiction was entirely governed by the additional jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Replace Section 1367(b), a portion of the United States Additional Jurisdiction Act. Pendent Jurisdiction`s main case is United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). Gibbs has been interpreted to mean that (1) there must be a federal claim (whether under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty) and (2) the non-federal claim arises “from a common core of operational facts,” so that a plaintiff is “generally expected to bring him to justice in a court case.” In principle, ancillary jurisdiction may be invoked in counterclaims, counterclaims, implementations, interpleraters and interventions. Additional jurisdiction is the power of U.S. federal courts to hear additional claims that are essentially related to the original claim, although the court does not have substantive jurisdiction to independently adjudicate the additional claims.

28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a codification of Supreme Court decisions on ancillary jurisdiction (Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978)) and the Pendent Jurisdiction (United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)) and a replacement of the Court`s treatment of the jurisdiction of the parties pending (Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989)). Deferred jurisdiction is the power of a U.S. federal court to hear a closely related state lawsuit against a party already facing a federal lawsuit described by the Supreme Court as “jurisdiction over non-federal claims between parties who duly negotiate other matters in court.” [3] Such jurisdiction is granted to promote both “economy in litigation”[4] and fairness by eliminating the need for separate federal and state negotiations with essentially the same facts, but possibly drawing conclusions to the contrary. Pending jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to rule on claims that it might not otherwise hear.

The related concept of jurisdiction of pending parties, on the other hand, is the power of the court to rule on claims against a party that is not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the court, since the action arises from the same core of facts as another legal action.