This Note examines the language and legislative history of section 1367(b) and proposes a uniform test for determining the circumstances in which subsection (b) authorizes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Part I of this Note explains the doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction and examines how the Supreme Court's decision in Finley v. United States called these doctrines into question. Part II examines the language and legislative history of section 1367 and concludes that the statute only prohibits the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs in diversity cases when doing so would permit plaintiffs to circumvent the complete diversity requirement. Part ID proposes a bright-line rule to prevent plaintiffs from evading the complete diversity requirement: Courts should be prohibited from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs in diversity cases that, but for the lack of complete diversity, could have been included in the original complaint.
Darren J. Gold,
Supplemental Jurisdiction over Claims by Plaintiffs in Diversity Cases: Making Sense of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (b),
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol93/iss7/3