Tag Archives: Supplemental Jurisdiction

Tenth Circuit Holds That Federal Claim Preclusion Applies to Supplemental State-Law Claim Dismissed Without Prejudice in First Federal Action, If Plaintiff Could Have Originally Asserted Diversity Jurisdiction Over That Claim

In Markley v. U.S. Bank NA, No. 24-1163 (10th Cir. June 24, 2025), the Tenth Circuit opens up a potential trap for the unwary, holding that if “a party could have litigated a claim in a prior lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction but fails to do so,” then that claim is precluded in a secondContinue reading “Tenth Circuit Holds That Federal Claim Preclusion Applies to Supplemental State-Law Claim Dismissed Without Prejudice in First Federal Action, If Plaintiff Could Have Originally Asserted Diversity Jurisdiction Over That Claim”

Second Circuit Splits from Tenth in Holding That Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Requires A Separate Analysis from Intervention Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)

The Second Circuit – in Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka, No. 24-1459-cv (2d Cir. April 10, 2025) – rejects a widely-recognized presumption that “a court necessarily possesses supplemental jurisdiction [under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)] over intervention claims when the requirements for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) are met,” holdingContinue reading “Second Circuit Splits from Tenth in Holding That Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Requires A Separate Analysis from Intervention Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)”

Fifth Circuit Holds That District Court Has “Ancillary Enforcement Jurisdiction” To Decide Belated Fee Petition, Then Affirms Denial of Fees

In Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Texas, No. 19-50857 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2020) , the plaintiff who won a partial victory in a First Amendment trial failed to file a timely attorney’s fee petition under  42 U.S.C. § 1988(d), either for the trial or the direct appeal (881 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2018)) affirmingContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Holds That District Court Has “Ancillary Enforcement Jurisdiction” To Decide Belated Fee Petition, Then Affirms Denial of Fees”