*The concept of supplemental Jurisdiction grows in complexity once we recognize that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate lawsuits in which the party structure is more complex than the “A v. B” lawsuit.
*Joinder Rules such as FRCP 14, 18, and 20 are rules of pleading – they specify the kinds of party and claim structures that are permitted in litigation in federal court. However, these rules don’t purport to control the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts – just because these rules permit a plaintiff to bring two different claims against a defendant does not tell us anything about whether there is federal jurisdiction over either or both claims in the case.
-FRCP 18: Joinder of Claims -permits a plaintiff to bring more than one claim against a defendant – governs the joinder of claims, not parties -without FRCP 18, plaintiff wouldn’t be permitted to do this – under common law rules of procedure (prior to adoption of FRCP), such simple things as bringing two claims against one defendant were difficult if not impossible to do -Example: Counterclaims, FRCP 13 -allows a defendant, who has been sued by the plaintiff, to assert a claim for relief against the plaintiff -a counterclaim is not a defense (“I didn’t do it”) but a claim for relief in its own right (“you owe me money for negligently injuring me”) -when a defendant asserts a counterclaim against the plaintiff, we now have at least two claims in the case – one by the plaintiff against the defendant, and one by the defendant against the plaintiff -Example: “third party claims,”/”impleader claims,” FRCP 14 -Standard lawsuit: A v. B -FRCP 14 permits the defendant B to assert a claim against a new party, making it A v. B v. C. In this case, B is not just the defendant, but also a “third party plaintiff,” and C is a “third party defendant.” -Why would you want to do this?
-Derivative Liability/Derivative Claim
(FRCP 14 (a)(1)): In order for this new third-party claim to be authorized by FRCP 14, the new third-party defendant must be alleged to be “liable to [the third-party plaintiff] for all or part of the [plaintiff’s claim] against it [the third party plaintiff].” Significant because B can’t implead C based on just any old claim he may have against C. If B is getting sued by plaintiff A, and B believes that C is liable for all or part of the damages that the A may win against B, B can choose to file a third party complaint against C (a third party not presently party to the lawsuit), in order for these two cases to be decided together and justice can be done more efficiently than by having two suits -Example: in a case where a driver rear-ended another car due to faulty brakes, and is sued by the accident victim, the driver can implead the repair shop where the brakes were worked on because the driver’s liability derives from the repair shop’s liability for their faulty repair of the brakes -Also significant because FRCP does not apply to a situation in which the original defendant B believes that the third-party defendant C was the one who caused the injury rather than B. No: “It was her, not me” arguments.

Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District, 1975; and Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 1978, p. 820-826
Facts:
*Deceased plaintiff: Kroger -former employee of Paxton and Vierling Steel Company in Iowa -incident that caused his death: electrocution (suing for wrongful death and trying to get to federal court using diversity claim: Kroger from Iowa, and defendant is a corporation with principal place of business there) -he was working to move a large steel tank by means of a crane with a 60 ft. boom. One man drove crane and another operated the boom, and Kroger walked along the tank to steady it. While he was doing this, the boom came so close to high tension lines that electricity from those lines jumped over to the boom and then another wave of electricity jumped over from the tank to Kroger and killed him. *Crane: owned by Owen Equipment and Erection Co. and leased by Paxton and Vierling Steel Co (K’s place of work) *High power transmission lines: once owned by Omaha Public Power District (a public corporation of state of Nebraska), but then sold the lines and equipment to Kroger’s place of work and subsequently sold electricity to K’s place of work and made repairs when they were requested

Procedural History:
Kroger’s lawyer sues Omaha Public Power (state court?) for wrongful death Omaha Power decides to implead Owen Equipment Omaha Power successfully seeks summary judgment (b/c Paxton and Vierling owned power lines, Omaha Power has no responsibility unless notified, and they weren’t notified) Kroger’s lawyer asserts wrongful death claim against Owen Equipment and goes for federal court claiming diversity jurisdiction b/c Kroger from Iowa and Owen Equipment is Nebraska corporation with principal place of business there) trial begins but Owen Equipment says no diversity because though incorporated in Nebraska, principal place of business is in Iowa district court refuses to grant Owen’s motion to dismiss and Kroger wins jury verdict (court says supplemental jurisdiction extends to Kroger’s claim against Owen) Owen appeals judgment reversed in favor of Owen

Issue: Whether a court can hear a plaintiff's claim against a third-party defendant when there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim in an action in which federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, a circumstance called ancillary jurisdiction.

Rule:
Ancillary jurisdiction: type of supplemental jurisdiction that allows a federal court to hear non-federal claims sufficiently logically dependent on a federal "anchor claim,” despite that such courts would otherwise lack jurisdiction over such claims.
*Different from pendent jurisdiction, which requires the federal and non-federal claims to arise from a "common nucleus of operative fact," (UMW v. Gibbs) not to be logically interdependent.
*Like pendent jurisdiction, a federal court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction if the anchor claim has original federal jurisdiction either through federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Holding:

Reasoning:
-Kroger could not have brought suit in a federal court if she had brought Owen Equipment (Iowa) and Omaha Power (Nebraska) as co-defendants, because there would have been no diversity (b/c everyone’s from Iowa) -So essentially, it was a clever way for her to get around losing at diversity by simply suing the one that was actually diverse (Omaha Power), in federal court, and waiting for Omaha to implead the defendant that wouldn’t have been diverse (Owen). -If K’s case had been a true diversity case and not just a trick to get to federal court by establishing diversity through having a diverse plaintiff implead an nondiverse plaintiff, then K wouldn’t have had any reason not to bring both of her claims together at the same time under pendent jurisdiction, since the claims all arose out of the “same nucleus of operative facts,” but in this case, pendent does not apply – ancillary jurisdiction applies b/c of impleader? -In determining whether jurisdiction over a non-federal claim exists, the context in which the nonfederal claim is asserted is crucial. -In K’s case, the nonfederal claim was not supplemental (pendent, specifically) to the federal claim – an impleader depends at least in part on the resolution of the primary lawsuit, and its relation to the original complaint is not factual similarity but logical dependence. But K’s claim against Owen was entirely separate from her original claim against Omaha, since Owen’s liability to K did not at all depend on whether or not Omaha was also liable (Omaha and Owen weren’t connected in making sure K’s working situation was safe). -In K’s case,

1c) Because K’s place of work had leased the crane, if there was a problem with the crane, it was their job to report it; maybe the accident wasn’t a result of machinery but of the operation of the machinery – human error? Maybe nothing was wrong with the crane – it was the power lines at fault?

Questions: 1) I understand why Kroger’s lawyer is suing Omaha Public Power district (if there was something wrong with the power lines and they neglected to fix it, it was their fault), but when Omaha Public Power impleaded Owen Equipment, wasn’t this improper use of an impleader because you can’t just pass on your blame to someone else? “denial of liability” – p. 822