Claim #1

Issue: Can Pamela join the state-based claim for wrongful discharge against Dilbert, seeking
damages of $50,000, where there is no diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction?

Brief Answer: Pamela can bring the state-based claim because it will fall under supplemental
jurisdiction.

Discussion

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367, federal courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims
being joined to claims that have original federal jurisdiction. The supplemental claims must be
“so related to the claims in the original action that they form part of the same case or
controversy.” Congress granted this authority to the federal courts under the interpretation of
Article 3 of the constitution, which states that judicial power shall extend to all cases arising
under the laws of the United States. Gibbs interpreted “the same case or controversy” to
mean that state and federal claims must derive from the same nucleus of operative fact. In
order to determine whether they do, In Re Ameriquest suggests to do 2 things: 1) compare the
facts necessary to prove the elements of the federal claim with those necessary to the state
claim, and 2) assess whether the state claims can be resolved or dismissed without affecting the
federal claims.
Here, Pamela’s state based claim does not have original jurisdiction in the federal courts
because there is no diversity (Pamela and Dilbert are citizens of the same state and the AIC is
not greater than 75k), and the claim does not arise under federal law. Under Rule 18, Pamela
is allowed to bring as many claims as she wants as long as there’s jurisdiction. Pamela’s claim
for wrongful discharge against Dilbert involves the same common operative facts with the ones
that will need to be addressed to prove her federal civil rights claim for discrimination because
she was wrongfully discharged after she complained about the discrimination.
Because Pamela’s original, anchor claim is based on a federal statute, 1367(b) does not
have to be analyzed. However, district courts can still decline to exercise jurisdiction in four
instances. 1) The claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. 2) The claim substantially
predominates over federal claim. 3) The district court dismissed the federal claim. 4) Other
compelling reasons. None of these are satisfied here because there is no novel or complex
issue of state law, it is just a regular garden variety wrongful termination claim, it does not
substantially predominate over the federal claim because it is just one claim, the court did not
dismiss the federal claim, and adding this claim would serve judicial economy and trial
convenience by preventing future relitigation on the issue of wrongful termination and prevent
her from being precluded from bringing the claim in the future.

Conclusion: Pamela can join her state based claim for wrongful discharge against Dilbert
because it will fall under supplemental jurisdiction.
Claim #2

Issue: Can Pamela join the state-based tort claim against Damian, the CEO of Dilbert, stemming
from injuries Pam received after Damian backed into her car in the company parking lot,
seeking damages of 8k, where there is no diversity or federal question jurisdiction?

Brief Answer: Pamela cannot join this claim because it doesn’t have its own basis of jurisdiction
and the courts likely cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction since that claim does not arise
from the same case or controversy.

Discussion: Distinct incident.

Claim #3

Issue: Can Pamela join the state-based tort claim for harassment against Daniel, her supervisor,
who was responsible for creating a hostile work environment, seeking damages of 50k where
there is no original basis of jurisdiction?

Brief Answer: Yes, Pamela can join this claim because it is part of the same case or controversy.

Claim #4

Issue: Can Damian bring a claim against Daniel for injuries he sustained in a parking lot?

Brief Answer: He can bring a crossclaim but it will be dismissed because Pam can’t bring a claim
against Damian in the first place.

Claim #5

Issue: Can Daniel bring a claim against Derek as a party who must be added as a defendant in
Pam’s tort claim for harassment, since Derek was the one who engaged in the worst conduct?

Discussion

Is Derek a required party, aka a person to be joined if feasible?