WPC  SXKCI N4<b@>J8~E%n=Zڲ0[7;}+M[G_nQejm7rgO$m݅ɽv.a<>~~I,ќaEluĺ? dGTUeJ! .zduݕ7K!oZoO-vj3h;9)YD`wPaGB:jDA_M>*&ïviŋC\_/ WDlN~}PW2& "Z]dMfG̣ÈC7`]!̥(eOiNX0d(wn4E 5ų#aV8Lomy&{1l˞Q_={LLY8Mںs+:L5)6>d^hSXp{i⵭<4̓, I:ކdl PU);#: % 0D 0GEU: 0U8nnTN UN UkFJ ^ w 4   E f a m UB b6 U>> o| P a;q #28b"b" $"1*,- BO6tl6$:]B\aHINoWXY\+TdPhorxE6HP LaserJet 5,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2D&$ !X4XXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@0(A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular0s Bl0xeREL3|x;TABLE AU<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular e D&$X4XXX      9    _Ԁ_Pfander_,SupplementalJurisdictionandSection1367:The  CaseforaSympathetic_Textualism_,148U.Pa.L.Rev.109(1999). F D&$X4XXX      17    _ԀIn1887,theminimumamountincontroversywas$2,000.See  ActofMarch3,1887,24Stat.552.Sincethattime,Congresshas  repeatedlyraised,andneverlowered,therequiredsum.SeeActof \ March3,1911,36Stat.1091(raisingtheminimumamountin 2 controversyto$3,000);ActofJuly25,1958,Pub.L.No.85554, X 2,72Stat.415(raisingtheminimumamountto$10,000);Judicial . ImprovementsandAccesstoJusticeAct,Pub.L.No.100702,201,   102Stat.4642(1988)(raisingtheminimumamountto$50,000);   FederalCourtsImprovementActof1996,Pub.L.No.104317,205, `  110Stat.3847(raisingtheminimumamountto$75,000).Weleave 6   asidethespecialcaseofclassactions.Seeinfranote19. W D&$X4XXX      5    _ԀAnunexplainedaffirmancebyanequallydividedCourthasno  precedentialvalue.SeeRutledgev.UnitedStates,517U.S.292,  304(1996). g D&$X4XXX      10    _ԀUntil1980,thefederalquestionstatutealsohadanamount  incontroversyrequirement.SeeActofDec.1,1980,Pub.L.No.  96486,2,94Stat.2369(eliminatingtheamountincontroversy \ requirementfrom1331).Ifthatrequirementwerestillineffect 2 today,aggregationissueswouldaffecttheexistenceof"original X jurisdiction"under1331.   z D&$X4XXX      7    _ԀInourview,classactionsraiseuniqueproblemsthatwill  bebetteraddressedwiththebenefitofbriefingandargumentina  caserequiringustoconsiderthem.Seeinfranote19. ( D&$X4XXX      4    _ԀWenotedtheissueintheclassactioncontextinSpielman  v.GenzymeCorp.,251F.3d1,7n.5(1stCir.2001).  D&$X4XXX      18    _ԀThedissentpointstotheMultiparty,_Multiforum_ԀTrial  JurisdictionAct(_MMTJA_)asevidencethatCongressisbackingaway  fromitslonghistoryofrestrictingdiversityjurisdiction.We \ disagree.OurconclusionisthatCongressiskeenlyawareofthe 2 limitsondiversityjurisdictionandexpectsthoselimitstoapply X exceptwhere,asinthe_MMTJA_,itspecificallyandunambiguously . altersthem. . D&$X4XXX      8    _ԀSeeArthur&Freer,GraspingatBurntStraws:TheDisaster  oftheSupplementalJurisdictionStatute,40Emory_//L.J._//Ԁ963,980  (1991)("_//Congress_//Ԁ_//could_//Ԁ_//have_//Ԁ_//overruled_//Ԁ_//the_//Ԁ_//holding_//Ԁ_//in_//Ԁ_//Finley_//_//quite_// \ _//simply_//Ԁ_//and_//Ԁ_//cleanly_//,_//without_//Ԁ_//affecting_//Ԁ_//other_//Ԁ_//areas_//...._//Why_//Ԁ_//the_// 2 _//statute_//Ԁ_//had_//Ԁ_//to_//Ԁ_//go_//Ԁ_//further_//,_//we_//Ԁ_//do_//Ԁ_//not_//Ԁ_//know_//._//That_//Ԁ_//the_//Ԁ_//statute_//Ԁ_//went_// X _//further_//,_//there_//Ԁ_//can_//Ԁ_//be_//Ԁ_//no_//Ԁ_//doubt_//.").- -- -  D&$X4XXX      21    _ԀCompare_Allapattah_ԀServ.,Inc.v.ExxonCorp.,333F.3d1248  (11thCir.2003)(holdingsupplementaljurisdictionexistsina  diversityclassactionaslongasonenamedplaintiffsatisfiesthe \ amountincontroversyrequirement);Gibsonv.ChryslerCorp.,261 2 F.3d927(9thCir.2001)(same),cert.denied,534U.S.1104 X (2002);_Rosmer_v._Pfizer_ԀInc.,263F.3d110(4thCir.2001)(same), . cert.dismissed,536U.S.979(2002);_Stromberg_ԀMetalWorks,Inc.    v.PressMech.Inc.,77F.3d928(7thCir.1996)(holding  supplementaljurisdictionexistsoverapartywhofailedtomeet  theamountincontroversyrequirement);InreAbbottLabs.,51F.3d \ 524(5thCir.1995)(holdingsupplementaljurisdictionexistsina 2 diversityclassactionaslongasonenamedplaintiffsatisfiesthe X amountincontroversyrequirement),withTrimblev._Asarco_,Inc., . 232F.3d946(8thCir.2000)(holdingsupplementaljurisdiction   doesnotexistinclassactiondiversitycase);_Meritcare_ԀInc.v.   St.PaulMercuryIns.Co.,166F.3d214(3dCir.1999)(holding `  supplementaljurisdictiondoesnotapplytoadiversitycase); 6   _Leonhardt_,160F.3d631(holdingsupplementaljurisdictiondoesnot  \  existinclassactiondiversitycase).  / ' Turner0Turner .    D&$X4XXX      2    _ԀWeaddressthesupplementaljurisdictionquestionbelow.  D&$X4XXX      11    _ԀThedissentwouldapplysuchatestinthiscase.According  tothedissent,1367authorizessupplementaljurisdiction  wheneverthedistrictcourthas"originaljurisdictionovera \ claim."(emphasisadded).Theproblemwiththedissent'stheoryis 2 that1367(a)doesnotrefertooriginaljurisdictionover X "claims."Rather,thestatuterequiresa"civilactionofwhich . thedistrictcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction."1367(a)   (emphasisadded).     Thatdistinctioniscritical.TheSupremeCourthasnever `  heldthatoriginaljurisdictionexistsovera"civilaction"under 6   1332simplybecauseoneclaimintheactionisbetweendiverse  \  partiesandexceedsthejurisdictionalminimum.Onthecontrary,  2  originaljurisdictiondoesnotlieunlessallofthepartiesinthe   casearediverse.SeeWis._..Dep't_..ԀofCorr.v.Schacht,524U.S.   381,388(1998)("Acasefallswithinthefederaldistrictcourt's d  'original'diversity'jurisdiction'onlyifdiversityof :  citizenshipamongthepartiesiscomplete,i.e.,onlyifthereis `  noplaintiffandnodefendantwhoarecitizensofthesame 6 State.").Similarly,1332isnotsatisfied,andoriginal   jurisdictionoverthe"civilaction"doesnotexist,unlesseach  plaintiffindependentlysatisfiestheamountincontroversy h requirement.Snyder,394U.S.at336;Clark,306U.S.at589. > Becausethecomplaintinthiscasefailsthisrequirement,original d jurisdictionoverthe"civilaction"isabsentand1367is : inapplicable. d j D&$X4XXX      6    _ԀThedistrictcourtsinourcircuitaresimilarlysplit.  ComparePaynev.GoodyearTire&RubberCo.,229F.Supp.2d43,52  (D.Mass.2002)(section1367permitssupplementaljurisdiction \ overpendentpartyplaintiffswhodonotthemselvessatisfy 2 requirementsof1332);and_..Duhaime_..v.JohnHancockMut.LifeIns. X Co.,177_..F.R.D._..Ԁ54,60(D.Mass.1997)(same),withAriasv.Am. . Airlines,Inc.,163F.Supp.2d111,115(_..D.P.R._..Ԁ2001)(each   plaintiffmustindependentlymeettherequirementsofdiversity   jurisdiction);andMayov.KeyFin._..Servs_...,Inc.,812F.Supp.277, `  278(D.Mass.1993)(same).  D&$X4XXX      12    _ԀThedissentarguesthatasingleclaimissufficientto  createoriginaljurisdictionovera"civilaction"under1332  becausecourtsarenotnormallyrequiredtodismisstheentire \ actionwhenajurisdictionalflawisdiscovered.Rather,acourt 2 maysimplydismisstheoffendingparties.See,e.g.,NewmanGreen, X Inc.v._..Alfonzo_..Ԅ_..Larrain_..,490U.S.826,836(1989)(courtsof . appealsmaycurejurisdictionaldefectsbydismissingdispensable   _..nondiverse_..Ԁparties);Clark,306U.S.at590(dismissingpartieswho   failedtomeettheamountincontroversyrequirementbutretaining `   jurisdictionoverthepartythatsatisfiedit).Thisargument  confusestheexistenceoforiginaljurisdictionwithremediesfor  itsabsence.Originaljurisdictionoverthe"civilaction"maybe \ achievedbydismissingcertaindispensableparties.Butaslongas 2 theoffendingpartiesarepresent,originaljurisdictionoverthe X "civilaction"cannotexist,seeSchacht,524U.S.at389("The . presenceof[a]_..nondiverse_..Ԁpartyautomaticallydestroysoriginal   jurisdiction...."),regardlessofwhetheranysingleclaimin   theactionwouldsatisfy1332byitself. S D&$X4XXX      13    _ԀThedoctrineofpendentjurisdiction,whichallowed  plaintiffstoassertnonfederalclaimsinfederalcourt,was  applicableonlyinfederalquestioncases.See7CWright,Miller, \ &Kane,Fed._++Prac_++.&Proc.1917n.7(2ded.2004);Carnegie 2 MellonUniv.v._++Cohill_++,484U.S.343,34849(1988);seealsoOwen X Equip.&ErectionCo.v.Kroger,437U.S.365,370(1978)(noting . thatthelowercourthaderredinrelyingonGibbs,apendent   jurisdictioncase,becausethecasebeforethecourtdidnot   involveafederalclaim).Ancillaryjurisdiction,bycontrast, `  appliedinbothfederalquestionanddiversitycases,butthat 6   doctrine"typically_++involve[d_++]claimsbyadefendingpartyhaled  \  intocourtagainsthiswill."Kroger,437U.S.at376(emphasis  2  added);seealsoid.atn.18.Moreover,theCourtinKrogermade   clearthatapartycouldnotresorttoancillaryjurisdictionwhere   doingsowouldeffectivelycircumventthecompletediversityrule. d  Seeid.at37577. R D&$X4XXX      3    _ԀAsforfuturemedicalexpenses,Mrs.Ortegasuggestedinher  depositionthatanyfuturesurgeryBeatrizmighthaveonherfinger  wouldbeelective.   D&$X4XXX      14    _ԀTheSupremeCourthasnotspecificallyheldthatplaintiffs  joinedunderRule20afterthefilingoftheoriginalcomplaint  mustalsosatisfytheamountincontroversyrequirement.That \ result,however,isprobablyinevitableinlightofClarkand 2 Snyder,for"[_..o]therwise_..Ԁanappellatecourtcouldbecalledonto X sustainadecreeinfavorofaplaintiffwhohadnotshownthathis . claiminvolvedthejurisdictionalamount,eventhoughthesuitwere   dismissedonthemeritsastotheotherplaintiffswhohad   establishedthejurisdictionalamountforthemselves."Clark,306 `  U.S.at590;cf.Am.Fiber&Finishing,Inc.v._..Tyco_..ԀHealthcare 6   Group,LP,362F.3d136,14041(1stCir.2004)(additionofanon  \  diversepartyafterfilingoforiginalcomplaintdestroyed  2  diversityjurisdiction).  D&$X4XXX      22    _Ԁ_See_Ԁ_also__In_Ԁ_re_Ԁ_Brand_Ԁ_Name_Ԁ_Prescription_Ԁ_Drugs_Ԁ_Antitrust_  _Litigation_,123_F_._3d_Ԁ599,607(7th_Cir_.1997)(_agreeing_Ԁ_that_Ԁ1367  _allows_Ԁ_supplemental_Ԁ_jurisdiction_Ԁ_in_Ԁ_either_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_class_Ԁ_action_Ԁ_or_ \ _joinder_Ԁ_situation_);_Rosmer_,263_F_._3d_Ԁ_at_Ԁ12229(_Motz_,_J_., 2 _dissenting_)(_interpreting_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_majority_'_s_Ԁ_interpretation_Ԁ_of_Ԁ1367 X _to_Ԁ_apply_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_Rule_Ԁ20_joinder_Ԁ_as_Ԁ_well_Ԁ_as_Ԁ_class_Ԁ_actions_).  D&$X4XXX      23    _ԀSeealso,RichardD.Freer,TowardaPrincipledStatutory  ApproachtoSupplementalJurisdictioninDiversityofCitizenship  Cases,74Ind._//L.J._//Ԁ5,2122(1998).   D&$X4XXX      24    _ԀSection1367(a)states:"(a)Exceptasprovidedin  subsections(b)and(c)orasexpresslyprovidedotherwiseby  Federalstatute,inanycivilactionofwhichthedistrictcourts \ haveoriginaljurisdiction,thedistrictcourtsshallhave 2 supplementaljurisdictionoverallotherclaimsthataresorelated X toclaimsintheactionwithinsuchoriginaljurisdictionthatthey . formpartofthesamecaseorcontroversyunderArticleIIIofthe   UnitedStatesConstitution.Suchsupplementaljurisdictionshall   includeclaimsthatinvolvethejoinderorinterventionof `  additionalparties."  D&$X4XXX      15    _ԀCongressmayhaveincludedthereferencetoRule19  plaintiffssimplytobeclearthataplaintiffjoinedasan  indispensablepartyunderRule19isinexactlythesamesituation \ asonewhointervenesasofrightunderRule24(a).Beforethe 2 enactmentof1367,ancillaryjurisdictionworkeddifferently X underRules19and24.SeegenerallyRowe,Burbank,&_..Mengler_.., . CongressAcceptsSupremeCourt'sInvitationtoCodifySupplemental   Jurisdiction,74Judicature213,215(Dec./Jan.1991)(describing   theidenticaltreatmentofplaintiffsunderRules19and24asthe `  "onemodestbutsignificantway"inwhich1367(b)wasintendedto 6   alterpriorlaw).  \    Similarly,othershaveofferedexplanationsforthereference  2  in1367(b)toclaimsagainstpersonsmadepartiesunderRule19   or20.See,e.g.,_..Pfander_..,SupplementalJurisdictionandSection   1367:TheCaseforaSympathetic_..Textualism_..,148U.Pa.L.Rev. d  109,14446(1999)(Rule20defendingparties);Rowe,Burbank,& :  _..Mengler_..,CompoundingorCreatingConfusionAboutSupplemental `  Jurisdiction?AReplytoProfessorFreer,40Emory_..L.J._..Ԁ943,at 6 95758(1991)(hereinafterRoweetal.,CompoundingorCreating   Confusion)(Rule19defendingparties). ! D&$X4XXX      25    _ԀSection1367(b)states:"Inanycivilactionofwhichthe  districtcourtshaveoriginaljurisdictionfoundedsolelyon  [diversity],thedistrictcourtsshallnothavesupplemental \ jurisdictionundersubsection(a)overclaimsbyplaintiffsagainst 2 personsmadepartiesunderRule14[third-partypractice],19 X [mandatoryjoinder],20[permissivejoinder],or24[intervention] . oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,oroverclaimsbypersons   proposedtobejoinedasplaintiffsunderRule19ofsuchrules,or   seekingtointerveneasplaintiffsunderRule24ofsuchrules, `  whenexercisingsupplementaljurisdictionoversuchclaimswouldbe 6   inconsistentwiththejurisdictionalrequirementsofsection1332." F D&$X4XXX      16    _Ԁ_Stromberg_itselfrecognizedthat"[_s]upplemental_  jurisdictionhasthepotentialtomovefromcompletetominimal  diversity."77F.3dat932.Nevertheless,thecourtconcluded \ that1367(b)isadequatetoprotecttheinterestsservedbythe 2 _Strawbridge_completediversityrule.Id.Likemanycommentators, X wedisagree.See,e.g.,_Fallon_,Meltzer,&Shapiro,Hart& . Wechsler'sTheFederalCourtsandTheFederalSystem1491(5thed.   2003)(describingtheomissionofRule20plaintiffsfrom1367(b)   as"puzzling"becauseitallowsplaintiffs"tocircumventthe `   completediversityrequirementof1332");Gold,Note,  SupplementalJurisdictionoverClaimsbyPlaintiffsinDiversity  Cases:MakingSenseof28U.S.C.1367(b),93Mich.L.Rev.2133, \ 2167n.140(1995)(theomissionofRule20plaintiffsmustbe 2 "inadvertent[]"becausealiteralreadingof1367(b)"wouldallow X plaintiffstostrategicallycircumventthecompletediversity . requirement");Roweetal.,CompoundingorCreatingConfusion,   supra,at961n.91(describing1367(b)'ssilenceaboutRule20   plaintiffsasa"potentiallygapingholeinthecompletediversity `  requirement").  D&$X4XXX      26    _ԀSection1367(c)states:"(c)Thedistrictcourtsmaydecline  toexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoveraclaim...if--(1)  theclaimraisesanovelorcomplexissueofStatelaw,(2)the \ claimsubstantiallypredominatesovertheclaimorclaimsover 2 whichthedistrictcourthasoriginaljurisdiction,(3)the X districtcourthasdismissedallclaimsoverwhichithasoriginal . jurisdiction,or(4)inexceptionalcircumstances,thereareother   compellingreasonsfordecliningjurisdiction."  D&$X4XXX      19    _ԀWeexpressnoviewontherelatedbutdistinctissueof  whether1367overturnstheSupremeCourt'sholdingin_Zahn_v.  InternationalPaperCo.,414U.S.291(1973),thateachclass \ memberinadiversityonlyclassactionmustmeetthe 2 jurisdictionalamountincontroversy.Seeid.at301.The X applicationof1367todiversityonlyclassactionsisa . differentproblemforseveralreasons,includingbecause(1)the   completediversityruleapplieswithdiminishedforceintheclass   actioncontext,seeSupremeTribeofBen_Hur_v._Cauble_,255U.S. `  356,366(1921);(2)section1367(b)doesnotmentionRule23at 6   all,whileitmentionsRule20atleastastodefendingparties;  \  and(3)thereareconflictingsignalsinthelegislativehistoryas  2  towhetherCongressintendedtooverrule_Zahn_,seePayne,229F.   Supp.2dat5152(summarizingthe"_murk[y_]"legislativehistoryon   thispoint).  D&$X4XXX      20    _ԀThedissentarguesthatCongresscouldnothaveintended  thisresultbecauseitistoosimilartotheoutcomeinFinley,  whichCongressmeanttooverturn.TheanalogytoFinley,however, \ F isbothinaccurateandunpersuasive.Finleyinvolvedan  exclusivelyfederalclaimunderthe_FTCA_;thiscaseispredicated  onlyondiversity.Thatisacriticaldifference:therulesof \ pendentjurisdictionhavealwaysbeenmoreflexibleinfederal 2 questioncasesthanindiversitycases,seesupranote13,nodoubt X tofacilitateafederalforumforclaimsarisingunderfederallaw. . Thefederalinterestin_Beatriz_'sfamilymembers'abilityto   asserttheirstatelawclaimsinfederalcourtismuchmore   attenuated. `    InFinley,moreover,therewasnoforumavailableinwhichthe 6   federalplaintiffcouldassertallofherclaims.SeeFinley,490  \  U.S.at555556.Inthiscase,bycontrast,suchaforumis  2  readilyavailable:thecourtsofPuertoRico.Itwasthe   plaintiffswhochosetosueinfederalcourt.Againstthat   background,thedissent'sjudicialefficiencyargumentsring d  hollow.Cf.Kroger,437U.S.at376("Aplaintiffcannotcomplain :  ifancillaryjurisdictiondoesnotencompassallofhispossible `  claimsinacasesuchasthisone,sinceitishewhohaschosen 6 thefederalratherthanthestateforum....").  D&$X4XXX      27    _ԀThemajorityattemptstojustifyitsapproachbyarguing  thatCongressshouldhaveexplicitlystatedthatsupplemental  jurisdictionexistsifoneclaimsupportsoriginaljurisdiction. \ First,suchspecificityisnotrequiredasitisundisputedthat 2 oneclaimcanconstituteacivilaction. X ̀Second,wecanargue"couldhave"or"shouldhave"adinfinitum.   IfCongresshadwantedtolimitsupplementaljurisdictionincases   suchasthis,forexample,itcouldhaveinsertedaRule20 `  plaintiffexceptioninto1367(b),asitdidforotherRulesof 6   CivilProcedure.IfCongresshaddoneso,themajoritywouldnot  \  needtoresorttoitsdubious"sympathetic_textualist_"  2  interpretationofthestatute.   ̀Inacaselikethis,adebateoverwhatCongresscouldhavedone d  isunproductiveandunnecessarywhenaplainreadingofthestatute :  producesoneclearresult:adistrictcourthasjurisdictionover `  supplementalclaimsifthedistrictcourthasoriginaljurisdiction 6 overaclaiminthecivilaction.  D&$X4XXX      28    _ԀThethirdoptionisalso_unrealstic_Ԁconsideringjudgments  intheCommonwealthcourtsarefarbelowthoseawardedinthe  federalcourts.See,e.g.,Stewartv._Tupperware_ԀCorp.,356F.3d \ 335(1stCir.2004). ; D&$X4XXX      29    _ԀSeeRoweJr.,Burbank,&_Mengler_,CompoundingorCreating  ConfusionAboutSupplementalJurisdiction?AReplytoProfessor  Freer,40Emory_L.J._Ԁ943,961n.91(1991)(recognizingthatthe \ 1367lefta"potentiallygapingholeinthecompletediversity 2 requirement").  D&$X4XXX      1    _ԀAtonepoint,thedistrictcourtwronglysaidthat"oncethe  defendantchallengestheamountofdamagesallegedinthe  complaint,thentheburdenshiftstotheplaintiffstoestablish \ factsindicatingthat,toalegalcertainty,theclaimsinvolve 2 morethanthejurisdictionalminimum."Thisisincorrect;the X plaintiffneedonlyshowitisnotalegalcertaintythatthe . claimswillnotresultinaverdictfortheamountincontroversy.   Thedoublenegativehassubstantivemeaning.Ultimately,it   appearsthedistrictcourtdidusethecorrectstandardregarding `  theplaintiffs'burdendespitethiserrorinlayingoutthelaw. !X4XXX  _0=%9XXdd==%9XdXXd=TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! XXXX4 k.X X     OYUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals ǻ k.  FortheFirstCircuit   ǻ X4X   A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.022530 K  @P P MARIADELROSARIOORTEGA;SERGIOBLANCO,  G    bythemselvesandrepresentingminors    BEATRIZBLANCOORTEGAandPATRIZIABLANCOORTEGA,   @Plaintiffs,Appellants, O  @tt)v. K  @STARKISTFOODS,INC.,  @<< Defendant,Appellee. S A') ` dE<` A O @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 4   FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO     [Hon.SalvadorE.Casellas,U.S.DistrictJudge] f A') ` dE<` A 8 @'Before    @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, y! TorruellaandLynch,CircuitJudges. O " A') ` dE<"` A "!%       FreddiePrezGonzlez,withwhomJuanJ.MartnezRodrguez #' andFreddiePrezGonzlez&Assoc.,P.S.C.wereonbrief,for $( appellants. b% )   DavidC.Indiano,withwhomAlexanderH.BoppandIndiano& 8&!* Williams,P.S.C.wereonbrief,forappellee. '^"+ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  )$.)$  SI)D%/ `@38139`@SJune2,2004 *&1  RHC+&2" `@38139 `@ R()D%3  (  * ! |-(4?     8%9XXdd8*,X` XX*X4XX X4 ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .InApril1999,BeatrizBlanco  Ortega,thennineyearsold,cutherrightpinkyfingeronacanof x StarKisttuna.Thatisnotnormallythestuffoflawsuitsin $t federalcourt,butherinjuriesweremorethantrivialandledto   surgery,theprospectoffuturesurgery,andminorpermanent |  disabilityandscarring# X4XXX4h #X4XX X4.Beatriz,alongwithherparentsand ( x  sister,suedinfederalcourt,assertingdiversityjurisdiction. $  28U.S.C.1332.TheclaimsofBeatriz'sfamilymemberswere   composedofemotionaldistressdamages,withthemotherasserting ,|  medicalexpensesaswell.Plaintiffs'choiceoffederalcourtwas ( nodoubtinfluencedbythefactthatciviljurytrialsare  unavailableinthelocalcourtsofPuertoRico. 0  ` Thecaseraisestwoissues.Firstistheclassic , questionwhethereachoftheplaintiffsmeetstheamountin  controversyrequirementfordiversityjurisdiction.28U.S.C. 4 1332(a).Thedistrictcourt,usingananalyticapproachthatwe 0 havesincerejected,seeStewartv.TupperwareCorp.,356F.3d335,   339(1stCir.2004),heldthatitwasalegalcertaintythatnone 8!" oftheplaintiffs'claimswasworth$75,000andsodismissedthe "4$ caseforlackofjurisdiction.Astotheinjuredchild,Beatriz, $& wereverseandholdthatitisnotalegalcertaintythatshecould <&!( notrecoveranawardover$75,000.Butweupholdthedistrict '8#* court'sconclusionthatnoneofBeatriz'sfamilymemberssatisfies )$, theamountincontroversyrequirement. @+&.  ` ThesecondquestioniswhetherBeatriz'sfamilymembers  maynonethelessremainasplaintiffsunderthesupplemental \ jurisdictionstatute,28U.S.C.1367.Thisisaverydifficult X question,newtothiscourt,onwhichthecircuitshavesplit.We   holdthatbylimitingsupplementaljurisdictionto"civilaction[s] `  ofwhichthedistrictcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction,"  \  1367(a),Congresspreservedthetraditionalrulethateach   plaintiffinadiversityactionmustseparatelysatisfytheamount d  incontroversyrequirement.Accordingly,weaffirmthedismissal `  ofBeatriz'sfamilymembers'claimsforlackofsubjectmatter   jurisdiction.# X4XXX4{#X4XX X4 h @tt) I.  d  ` OnApril17,2000,BeatrizBlancoOrtega,alongwith , threefamilymembers,filedadiversitysuitagainstStarKist  FoodsInc.,StarKistCaribeInc.,andtheirunnamedinsurersin 4 thedistrictofPuertoRico. BesidesBeatriz,theplaintiffs 0 consistedofhermother,MariadelRosarioOrtega;herfather,   SergioBlanco;andhersister,PatriziaBlancoOrtega. The 8!" defendantspromptlymovedtodismissthecomplaintforlackof "4$ jurisdiction,claimingthattherewasnotcompletediversityof $& citizenshipbecauseStar-KistCaribeInc.,thebranchofStar-Kist <&!( thatdoesbusinessinPuertoRico,wasaPuertoRicocitizenfor '8#* purposesofthediversitystatute.Thedistrictcourtagreedand )$, dismissedthecomplaintwithoutprejudice. @+&.  ` Theplaintiffsre-filedtheircomplaintonFebruary28,  2001,thistimeonlynamingStar-KistFoods,Inc.anditsunnamed \ insurersasdefendants.ThecomplaintallegedthatBeatrizhad X sufferedphysicaldamagesofnotlessthan$500,000andemotional   damagesofnotlessthan$400,000.Italsoallegedthateachof `  herthreefamilymembershadsufferedemotionaldamagesinexcess  \  of$150,000andthatMrs.Ortegahadalsoincurred$4,927.07in   pastmedicalexpensesand$25,000inestimatedfuturemedical d  expenses.  `   ` OnOctober24,2001,StarKistmovedforsummary   judgment,allegingthatnoneoftheplaintiffscouldsatisfythe h $75,000amountincontroversyrequirement. Thedistrictcourt d agreedandonJuly18,2002,onceagaindismissedallofthe  plaintiffs'claimswithoutprejudiceforwantofjurisdiction. The l fourplaintiffsappealthatdecision. h @88) II.   # X4XXX4?#"X4XX X4 A.AmountinControversyRequirement # X4XXX4"#X4XX X4    ` In1938,theSupremeCourtestablishedthebasicstandard T!" bywhichtoevaluateachallengethataplaintiffhasnotmetthe #P$ jurisdictionalamountincontroversyrequirement: $& Therulegoverningdismissalforwantofjurisdictionin X&!( casesbroughtinfederalcourtisthat,unlessthelaw .'~") givesadifferentrule,thesumclaimedbytheplaintiff (T#* controlsiftheclaimisapparentlymadeingoodfaith. (*$+ Itmustappeartoalegalcertaintythattheclaimis )%, reallyforlessthanthejurisdictionalamounttojustify *%- dismissal. \+&. :$H$ 2,'/ V$St.PaulMercuryIndem.Co.v.RedCabCo.,303U.S.283,28889  (1938)(internalcitationsomitted). \  ` "UnderSt.Paul,aplaintiff'sallegationsofdamages X thatmeettheamountincontroversyrequirementsufficesunless   questionedbytheopposingpartyorthecourt."Spielmanv. `  GenzymeCorp.,251F.3d1,5(1stCir.2001).Onceadefendant  \  questionsjurisdictionbychallengingtheamountofdamagesalleged   inthecomplaint,theburdenshiftstotheplaintifftoshowthat d  itisnotalegalcertaintythattheclaimsdonotinvolvethe `  requisiteamount.: #  1      ׀Id.at4;Barrettv.Lombardi,239F.3d23,   30-31(1stCir.2001)."Apartymaymeetthisburdenbyamending h thepleadingsorbysubmittingaffidavits."Dep'tofRecreation& d Sportsv.WorldBoxingAss'n,942F.2d84,88(1stCir.1991).# X4XXX4##X4XX X4  Whenthereareseveralplaintiffs,eachmustpresentclaimsthat l meetthejurisdictionalamount.%  #  2      ׀Clarkv.PaulGrayInc.,306U.S. h  583,589(1939).Onceadistrictcourtdismissesforfailureto  meetthejurisdictionalamount,thecourtofappealsreviewsthat  judgmentdenovo.Spielman,251F.3dat4.# X4XXX4q+#X4XX X4 \  # X4XXX4-#X4XX X4 ` Thebasicerrorcommittedbythedistrictcourtwasto X evaluatetheamountincontroversybyreferencetoamountsthatthe   SupremeCourtofPuertoRicohasfoundreasonableintortcases. `  AswenotedinStewart,theanalogyisimperfectinmultiple  \  respects,mostnotablybecausePuertoRicodoesnothavejury   trialsincivilcases.356F.3dat339.Wethusconductthe d  amountincontroversyinquirydenovo,lookingtoeachplaintiff `  individually.   # X4XXX4.#X4XX X4 ` Theplaintiffspresentedthefollowingevidencein h responsetoStarKist'schallengetotheamountsallegedinthe d complaint:thedepositiontestimonyofeachofthefourplaintiffs,  themedicalreportofDr.Zegarra(Beatriz'streatingphysician), l hospitalrecords,receiptsforthepaymentofBeatriz'streatment, h picturesofBeatriz'shandafterthesurgery,andthetestimonyof  boththeschoolnurseandtheschoolparamedicwhoinitially p  treatedBeatrizwhenshecutherself.  !l"  ` ThisevidenceestablishedthatafterBeatrizcuther "$ pinkyfingerwhileopeningacanofStarKisttuna,shewenttothe t$& schoolinfirmary.Thenurseandaparamedicwereabletostopthe  &p!( bleedingafterfifteentothirtyminutes. Thenursesaidthatthe '#* cutwasdeepandbledprofusely. AschoolofficialcalledMrs. x)$, OrtegaathometotellheraboutBeatriz'sinjury,andMrs.Ortega $+t&. wenttotheschooltopickupBeatriz. Mrs.Ortegathentook  Beatriztotheemergencyroomofanearbyhospital,whereadoctor x indicatedthatBeatrizmayhaveseveredhertendonsandnerves. $t  Mrs.OrtegacontactedDr.Zegarra,ahandsurgeon,byphonewhile   shewasatthehospital,andscheduledanimmediateappointment. |  Together,Mrs.OrtegaandBeatrizwentimmediatelyfromthe ( x  hospitaltoDr.Zegarra'soffice.  $   ` Dr.ZegarraconfirmedthatBeatrizhadinfactdamaged   hernervesandtendonsanddeterminedthatsherequiredsurgery. ,|  Hewasunabletosecureanoperatingroomforthatday,sothe ( surgerywasscheduledforApril22,thenextday. Thesurgery,  whichrequiredBeatriztobeputundergeneralanesthesia, 0 successfullyrepairedBeatriz'sdeepflexortendonanddigital , nerve. Afterthesurgery,Beatrizattendedphysicaltherapy,which  waspainful,threetimesaweekforathreemonthperiod. Beatriz 4 continuedthephysicaltherapyforeightmonthsintotalandwore 0 acastthroughoutthatentireperiod. Thetherapyimpairedher   abilitytowriteandpaintinschoolandforcedhertodropoutof 8!" avolleyballtournament. Herfingerbearsasmallscarandis "4$ slightlybent. Despitethesuccessfulsurgery,Beatrizhasbeen $& diagnosedwitha3%partialpermanentimpairmentofthefunctioning <&!( ofherhand. Themedicalprognosisisthattheinjurycouldbecome '8#*  worseasshegrowsandthatshemayneedmoresurgery.  )$,  ` GivenBeatriz'spermanentphysicalimpairment,the   surgery,andtheclaimedpainandsuffering(bearinginmindthe \ potentialimpactoftheinjuryanditsaftermathonayounggirl), X wecannotsaytoalegalcertaintythatBeatrizcouldnotrecover   ajuryawardlargerthan$75,000.SeeStewart,356F.3dat340 `  (plaintiffsmetjurisdictionalminimumwhereevidencesuggested  \  thateachhadsufferedpermanentphysicalimpairment,hadendured   nontrivialpainandsufferingdamagesbyhavingtospendhoneymoon d  inahospital,andmightrequirefuturemedicalservices);Gebbia `  v.Wal-MartStores,Inc.,233F.3d880,883(5thCir.2000)   (plaintiff'sallegationsthat,asaresultoffallingin h defendant'sstore,shesustainedinjuriestoherwrist,kneeand d back,resultinginpermanentdisabilityanddisfigurementand  causingpainandsufferingandlostwages,weresufficienttomeet l jurisdictionalamountincontroversyrequirement);Rosenborov. h Kim,994F.2d13,1819(D.C.Cir.1993)("[T]hepresenceof  medicalevidenceshowingthataplaintiffissufferingfroma p  continuingorpermanentphysicalimpairment[is]animportant !l" indicator"indeterminingwhethertheplaintiffmeetstheamount "$ incontroversyrequirement). t$&  ` Theotherplaintiffsfaredifferently.Mrs.Ortega  &p!( presentedevidencethatshepaid$4,927.07forpastmedical '#* expensesandsaysthatsheanticipatespaying$25,000infuture x)$, medicalexpenses. Shealsoclaimsthatheremotionaldistress $+t&. damagestotaled$250,000. WeassumearguendothatMrs.Ortegacan  claimthepastmedicalexpensesandsomefuturemedicalexpenses.+ #  3      ׀ \ Buttherewasnosupportatallforthe$25,000figureforfuture X medicalexpensesthatshealleged,andalowerfigureappearstobe   inorder,giventhatpastexpenseswerelessthan$5,000.Evenif `  shecouldclaimall$25,000,thereisstillquiteagapbetweenthe  \  medicalexpensesand$75,000.    ` WeconcludethatMrs.Ortegacannotfillthisentiregap d  withheremotionaldistressdamages.Cf.JimenezPuigv.Avis `  RentACarSys.,574F.2d37,40(1stCir.1978)(amountin   controversyrequirementof$10,000wasnotmetinclaimforshort h livedembarrassmentandangerresultingfromacarrentalclerk's d publicdestructionofcreditcardandannouncementthatplaintiff  hadfailedtopayhisbills).Oneofthenormalresponsibilities l ofparenthoodisdealingwithachild'scutsandscrapes,andhere h theinjurieswererelativelyminor.NeitherBeatriznorhermother  soughtanycounselingrelatingtotheinjury.# X4XXX40#X4XX X4ԀMoreover,Mrs. p  OrtegadidnotpersonallywitnessBeatriz'saccidentorthe !l" immediateaftermath.# X4XXX4MK#X4XX X4 "$  ` Mrs.Ortegatriestoarguethatshemeetsthe t$& jurisdictionalamountbyrelyingonremittiturcases.Certainly  &p!( courtsmayresorttoanalogouscasesinvolvingremittiturin '#* determiningwhetheraplaintiffcanmeettheamountincontroversy  requirementinadiversitycase.Buttheutilityofremittitur \ caseswillvarydependingonatleastthreefactorsthefactual X similaritiesbetweenthecases,thedifferenceinviewpoints   betweenthestartofacaseandtheendofacase,andboththe `  juryawardintheremittiturcaseandtheamounttowhichitwas  \  reduced.    ` Remittiturofajuryawardisorderedwhentheawardis d  "grosslyexcessive,inordinate,shockingtotheconscienceofthe `  court,orsohighthatitwouldbeadenialofjusticetopermitit   tostand."Correav.Hosp.SanFrancisco,69F.3d1184,1197(1st h Cir.1995).Insuchcases,theruleinthiscircuitisthatthe d juryawardshouldberemitted"tothemaximumthatwouldbeupheld  bythetrialcourtasnotexcessive."Jones&Jonesv.Pineda& l Pineda,22F.3d391,398(1stCir.1994).Theplaintiffhasa h choicebetweenacceptingtheremittituramountoroptingforanew  trial.SeeLibertyMut.Ins.Co.v.Cont'lCas.Co.,771F.2d579, p  588(1stCir.1985).# X4XXX4L#X4XX X4 !l"  ` # X4XXX4S#X4XX X4Whileremittiturdeterminationsarebasedonwhathas "$ beenprovedattrial,amount-in-controversydeterminationsaremade t$& attheoutsetofthecase.Seegenerally14BWright&Miller,Fed.  &p!( Prac.&Proc.3702(2ded.2003)# X4XXX4S#X4XX X4.Thisdifferentprocedurallens '#* complicatesdeterminingwhetherthereissufficientfactual x)$, similaritybetweentheremittiturcaseandthejurisdictionalcase. $+t&. Tobeuseful,thefactsofinjuryanddamages# X4XXX4T#X4XX X4Ԁthatwereactually  provedtothejuryintheremittiturcase# X4XXX4:V#X4XX X4Ԁmustbesimilartothe \ facts,takeninthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiff,that X couldbeprovedinthejurisdictionalcase.# X4XXX4V#X4XX X4    ` # X4XXX4W#X4XX X4Moreover,forananalogytoaremittiturcasetobe `  useful,thedifferencebetweenthenumbersinvolvedinthe  \  remittiturcasemustbetakenintoaccount.# X4XXX4X#X4XX X4Theseamountsare(1)   thejuryawardthatwasdeemedexcessiveinaremittiturcaseand d  (2)theamounttowhichthatawardwasremitted# X4XXX4$Y#X4XX X4.# X4XXX4Z#X4XX X4ԀIf,assumingthe `  casesareotherwisesimilar,bothnumbersareabovethe   jurisdictionalminimum(i.e.,$75,000),thentheremittiturcase h supportstheconclusionthattheamountincontroversyrequirement d hasbeenmet.Similarly,ifboththejuryawardandtheamountto  whichitwasremittedarelessthan$75,000,thatsupportsthe l conclusionthattheamountincontroversyrequirementcannotbe h met.   ` Moreproblematicareremittiturcaseshoveringaroundthe p  jurisdictionalamounti.e.,casesinwhichthejuryawardis !l" abovethejurisdictionalamountbuttheamounttowhichtheaward "$ wasremittedisbelowthejurisdictionalamount.Intheory,the t$& amounttowhichtheawardwasremittedshouldbethemaximum  &p!( possibleamountthatwaslegallypermissible,andthusshouldbe '#* theapplicablebasisofcomparison.Buttheoryisoftenalongway x)$, fromreality.Aswehavenotedbefore,"convertingfeelingssuch $+t&. aspainandsufferingandthelossofenjoymentoflifeinto  dollarsisnotanexactscience."Smith,177F.3dat33n.5.One \ safetyvalvefortheinherentdifficultyinselectingaremittitur X amountisthattheplaintiffisgiventhechoiceofacceptingthe   reducedamountoroptingforanewtrial.SeeLibertyMut.Ins. `  Co.,771F.2dat588.Thedifficultyinconvertingpainand  \  sufferingintoadollaramountmakeseachcaseveryfactspecific,   thusdecreasingtheusefulnessofaremittiturcasehoveringaround d  thejurisdictionalamount.# X4XXX4XZ#X4XX X4 `  # X4XXX4ab#X4XX X4 ` Mrs.Ortegaarguesbyreferencetoaremittiturcase,   Smithv.KmartCorp.,177F.3d19(1stCir.1999).# X4XXX4b#X4XX X4ԀInthatcase, h ahusbandandwifewereshoppingindefendant'sstorewhenthewife d wasstruckontheheadbyacoolerthatfellfromashelf.Id.at  22.Asaresultoftheblow,thewifelostconsciousnessforclose l toaminute,leadingthehusbandtoadministermouthtomouth h resuscitation.Id.at22.Hetestifiedthathebelievedhiswife  wasdead.Id.at23.Eventuallyanambulancearrived,and p  paramedicsplacedacervicalcollararoundthewife'sneckand !l" transportedherontotheambulanceusingastiffboardthathad "$ beenplacedunderneathher.Id.at22.Thewifesufferedfromthe t$& blowformonthsaftertheinjury.Id.Thejuryawardedthe  &p!( husband$250,000inemotionaldistressdamages,andtheappellate '#* courtremittedthatawardto$100,000.Id.at3233.Mrs.Ortega x)$, arguesthathercaseissimilartothehusband'sinSmithandthat $+t&. eventhe$100,000amounttowhichdamageswereremittedinthat  caseislargerthanthe$75,000minimum.# X4XXX4c#X4XX X4 \  ` Mrs.Ortega'srelianceonSmithfailseventhoughboth X theoriginalawardandthereducedamountweregreaterthanthe   jurisdictionalminimum,becauseMrs.Ortega'scaseisnot `  sufficientlyfactuallysimilartoSmith.Beatriz'sinjury,onthe  \  basisoftheplaintiffs'complaint,wasnotnearlyasdramaticor   disruptiveasthewife'sinjuryinSmith.Noonebelievedthat d  Beatrizwoulddieofthecutonherfingerandtherewasno `  dramaticwitnessingoftheaccident,unlikeinSmith.Moreover,   unlikethehusbandinSmith,Mrs.Ortegahasnotallegedthatthe h accidenthasinanywaystrainedherrelationshipwithBeatriz. d Seeid.at23.# X4XXX4h#X4XX X4# X4XXX4l#X4XX X4Ԁ   ` Beatriz'ssisterPatriziahasanevenlesssubstantial l claimforemotionaldistressdamagesthanhermother.Patriziawas h astudentinWashington,D.C.atthetimeoftheinjuryanddidnot  returnhomeduetotheaccident. AlthoughshedidtakeBeatrizto p  somephysicaltherapysessionsaftershereturnedfromschoolover !l" thesummer,Patriziadidnotmissanyworkorschoolobligationsto "$ doso. Liketheothers,thereisnoevidenceofPatrizia's t$& receivinganycounselingservicesinconnectionwithherlittle  &p!( sister'sinjury.ItislegallycertainthatPatriziacouldnot '#*  recoveranawardover$75,000forheremotionaldistress. x)$,  ` ItisalsolegallycertainthattheclaimsofBeatriz's   father,SergioBlanco,donotmeetthe$75,000threshold.Mr. \ BlancoisdivorcedfromBeatriz'smotheranddoesnotlivewith X Beatriz. HespenthalfadayatthehospitalduringBeatriz's   surgery,buthedidnotbringBeatriztoanymedicalappointments. `   Mr.Blanco'sclaimtoemotionaldistressdamagesover$75,000is  \  tootenuous.    ` Inshort,onlyBeatriz'sclaimsatisfiesthe d  jurisdictionalrequirementsof1332.Herfamilymembers'claims `  donotmeettheminimumamountincontroversy,andnoother   independentbasisforfederaljurisdiction(e.g.,federalquestion h jurisdiction)exists# X4XXX4m#X4XX X4Ԁoverthoseclaims. d  # X4XXX4qt#X4XX X4B.SupplementalJurisdictionunder1367    ` Thisleavestheissueofsupplementaljurisdiction.  Beatriz'sfamilymemberscannotfiletheirownsuitsagainstStar 4 Kistinfederalcourt.Thequestioniswhetherthesupplemental 0 jurisdictionstatute,28U.S.C.1367,# X4XXX4t#X4XX X4allowsthemtoproceedin   federalcourtnonethelessonthebasisofBeatriz's 8!" jurisdictionallysufficientclaim. "4$  ` Thoughsimpletostate,thequestionhasnotbeen $& answeredinthiscircuit, #  4      # X4XXX4v#X4XX X4Ԁanditsproperresolutionisfarfrom <&!( clear.Thecourtsofappealsaresharplydividedoverwhether '8#* 1367allowspartieswhocannotthemselvessatisfy1332's  amountincontroversyrequirementtosueinfederalcourtby \ joiningforceswithaplaintiffwhocan.TheSupremeCourtonce X granted# X4XXX4>x#X4XX X4certioraritoresolvethematter,butitultimatelysplit   44andaffirmedwithoutopinion.SeeFreev.AbbottLabs.,Inc., `  529U.S.333(2000). #  5      # X4XXX4z#X4XX X4  \   ` Theproblemhasactuallyarisenintwocontexts,eachof   whichisthesubjectofacircuitsplit.First,therearecases d  likeBeatriz'sinvolvingtheordinaryjoinderofadditional `  plaintiffsunderFed.R.Civ.P.20.CompareStrombergMetal   Works,Inc.v.PressMech.,Inc.,77F.3d928,932(7thCir.1996) h (whereoneplaintiffsatisfiestheamountincontroversy d requirement,1367permitsjurisdictionovertransactionally  relatedclaimsbycoplaintiffswhodonot),withMeritcare,Inc. l v.St.PaulMercuryIns.Co.,166F.3d214,216(3dCir.1999) h (eachcoplaintiffmustindependentlysatisfytheamountin  controversyrequirement).# X4XXX4s{#X4XX X4ԀSecond,therearecasesinvolvingthe p  claimsofabsentclassmembersindiversityonlyclassactions. !l" CompareAllapattahServ.,Inc.v.ExxonCorp.,333F.3d1248,1254 "$ (11thCir.2003)(section1367authorizesjurisdictionoverall t$& classmembers'claimsifthenamedplaintiffssatisfytheamount  &p!( incontroversyrequirement);Gibsonv.ChryslerCorp.,261F.3d '#* 927,934(9thCir.2001)(same);Rosmerv.Pfizer,Inc.,263F.3d  110,114(4thCir.2001)(same);andInreAbbottLabs.,51F.3d \ 524,528(5thCir.1995)(same),withTrimblev.Asarco,Inc.,232 X F.3d946,962(8thCir.2000)(section1367doesnotextend   jurisdictionoverclassmemberswhodonotindependentlymeetthe `  amountincontroversyrequirement);andLeonhardtv.W.SugarCo.,  \  160F.3d631,640(10thCir.1998)(same).( #  6      # X4XXX4P#X4XX X4ԀBecausethesame   statutorylanguageappliesinbothcontexts,somecourtshave d  lumpedthetwotogetherforpurposesof1367.See,e.g., `  Meritcare,166F.3dat218# X4XXX4Z#X4XX X4;Stromberg,77F.3dat931.Ourcase   involvesonly# X4XXX4#X4XX X4ԀRule20joinder,however,andweexpressnoview h regardingtheapplicationof1367inclassactions.  #  7      ׀ d  ` # X4XXX4#X4XX X4Evenasidefromthecircuitsplit,thisisanareawhere  courtsarewisetotreadcarefully.Theproblemofpendentparty l jurisdictionimplicatessomeofthemostsensitiveandenduring h issuesinthelawoffederaljurisdiction,anditdirectlyaffects  theallocationofjudicialbusinessamongthestateandfederal  courts.Intheend,certaintycancomeonlyfromCongressorthe \ SupremeCourt.Fornow,wedisagreewiththeSeventhCircuitand X jointheThirdCircuitinholdingthat,atleastincasesofRule   20joinder,1367didnotupsetthesettledrulethateach `  plaintiffmustindependentlysatisfythediversitystatute's  \  amountincontroversyrequirement.   1.Background d   ` Before1990,itisclear,Beatriz'sfamilymemberscould `  nothavejoinedinBeatriz'sdiversitysuitunlesstheyeachstood   torecovermorethantheminimumamountrequiredforjurisdiction. h Asearlyas1911,theSupremeCourtdeclaredthat"[w]hentwoor d moreplaintiffs,havingseparateanddistinctdemands,unitefor  convenienceandeconomyinasinglesuit,itisessentialthatthe l demandofeachbeoftherequisitejurisdictionalamount."Troy h Bankv.G.A.Whitehead&Co.,222U.S.39,40(1911).Thatruleis  nowcommonlyassociatedwithClarkv.PaulGray,Inc.,306U.S.583 p  (1939),whichreaffirmedTroyBankaftertheadoptionofthe !l" FederalRulesofCivilProcedure.See306U.S.at589.Evenafter "$ UnitedMineWorkersv.Gibbs,383U.S.715(1966),inwhich# X4XXX4T#X4XX X4Ԁthe t$& SupremeCourtapprovedpendentclaimjurisdictioninfederal  &p!( questioncases,seeid.at725,Clarkremainedgoodlaw: '#* "[M]ultipleplaintiffswithseparateanddistinctclaimsmusteach x)$, satisfythejurisdictionalamountrequirementforsuitinthe $+t&. federalcourts."Zahnv.Int'lPaperCo.,414U.S.291,294  (1973);seealsoAldingerv.Howard,427U.S.1,1516(1976) \ (distinguishingpendentpartyjurisdictionfromthetypeof X pendentclaimjurisdictionpermittedinGibbs).IftheClarkrule   appliesinthiscase,weshouldaffirmthedismissalasto `  Beatriz'sfamilymembersbutvacateastoBeatriz,therebyleaving  \  Beatrizfreetochoosebetweenproceedingaloneinfederalcourtor   voluntarilydismissinghercomplaintandrefilingtogetherwith d  herfamilyinthePuertoRicocourts.SeeClark,306U.S.at590. `   ` WhetherClarkcontinuestoapplytodaydependsonhowone   reads28U.S.C.1367,thesupplementaljurisdictionstatute, h whichwasenactedbyCongressin1990.SeeJudicialImprovements d Actof1990,Pub.L.No.101650,104Stat.5089,310.In  relevantpart,1367provides: l (a)0 ` Exceptasprovidedinsubsections(b)and(c)oras h expresslyprovidedotherwisebyFederalstatute,in > anycivilactionofwhichthedistrictcourtshave  originaljurisdiction,thedistrictcourtsshall  havesupplementaljurisdictionoverallother p  claimsthataresorelatedtoclaimsintheaction F ! withinsuchoriginaljurisdictionthattheyform !l" partofthesamecaseorcontroversyunderArticle !B# IIIoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Such "$ supplementaljurisdictionshallincludeclaimsthat #% involvethejoinderorinterventionofadditional t$& parties.J% '` `  (b)0 ` Inanycivilactionofwhichthedistrictcourts &F") haveoriginaljurisdictionfoundedsolelyon '#* section1332ofthistitle,thedistrictcourts (#+ shallnothavesupplementaljurisdictionunder x)$, subsection(a)overclaimsbyplaintiffsagainst N*%- personsmadepartiesunderRule14,19,20,or24 $+t&. oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,orover +J'/ claimsbypersonsproposedtobejoinedas  plaintiffsunderRule19ofsuchrules,orseeking  tointerveneasplaintiffsunderRule24ofsuch \ rules,whenexercisingsupplementaljurisdiction 2 oversuchclaimswouldbeinconsistentwiththe X jurisdictionalrequirementsofsection1332..` `  TheimpetusforCongress'sadoptionof1367wastheSupreme   Court's54decisioninFinleyv.UnitedStates,490U.S.545 6   (1989).SeegenerallyRaygorv.RegentsoftheUniv.ofMinn.,534  2  U.S.533,53940(2002).Finleydidnotdealwiththeamountin   controversyrequirement.Rather,theplaintiffinFinleyhadfiled :  suitagainsttheUnitedStatesundertheFederalTortClaimsAct 6 (FTCA),28U.S.C.1346(b),allegingthatthegovernment'sfailure  tomaintaincertainairportrunwaylightshadcontributedtothe > deathofherhusbandandchildreninanairplaneaccident.490 : U.S.at546.Later,sheamendedhercomplainttoaddstatelaw  tortclaimsagainsttwonewdefendants,amunicipalityanda B utilitycompany.Noindependentbasisforfederalsubjectmatter > jurisdictionexisted# X4XXX4o#X4XX X4Ԁoverthoseclaims.Id.TheSupremeCourt  acknowledgedthattheplaintiffcouldnothavebroughtherentire F ! actioninstatecourtbecausefederaljurisdictioninFTCAcasesis !B# exclusive,butitheldneverthelessthatthedistrictcourtlacked #% jurisdictionoverthe"pendentparty"statelawclaims.Id.at J% ' 55556.TheCourtconcludedbynotingthatCongresswasfreeto &F") reversethatresultifitwished.Id.at556. (#+  ` Congressdidsoin1367.SeeRaygor,534U.S.at540; N*%- id.at550(Stevens,J.,dissenting);PonceFed.Bank,F.S.B.v. +J'/ TheVessel"LadyAbby",980F.2d56,58(1stCir.1992)(Breyer,  C.J.)(section1367overturnsFinley).Thetextofthestatute, \ however,canbereadtodomorethanoverturnFinley.  #  8      # X4XXX4n#X4XX X4ԀThe X jurisdictionalgrant,whichappearsinsection(a),isnotlimited   tocaseslikeFinleyinvolvingexclusivefederaljurisdiction,or `  eventofederalquestioncasesgenerally.Instead,subsection(a)  \  permitsthedistrictcourtstohearanyclaimarisingfromthesame   constitutionalcaseorcontroversy"inanycivilactionofwhich d  thedistrictcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction."Subsection(b) `  thencreatesanexceptiontothatgrantforcertainclaimsin   diversitycases.Theresultisajurisdictionalgrantofsuch h apparentbreadththat,# X4XXX4#X4XX X4asonecommentatorsuccinctlyputit,"the d statutehascreatedconfusioninanumberofareasinwhich  principleswerethoughttobewellestablished."13BWright, l Miller,&Cooper,Fed.Prac.&Proc.3567.2(2ded.2003). h 2.Section1367andtheClarkRule   ` Onesuchareaofconfusioninvolvesthecontinued p  validityofClarkinthewakeof1367.Thecaselawonthis !l"  issueissplitbetweentwocompetinginterpretationsof1367. "$  ` Thefirst,adoptedbytheSeventhCircuitinStromberg,   turnsonCongress'sfailuretoincludeRule20plaintiffsamong \ thosepartieswhocannotrelyonsupplementaljurisdictionwhere X doingsowouldbeinconsistentwith1332.See1367(b)   (restrictingsupplementaljurisdictionoverpartiesjoinedas `  plaintiffsunderRules19or24,butomittingRule20plaintiffs).  \  Onthisreading,# X4XXX4*#X4XX X41367overturnsClarkandextendssupplemental   jurisdictionoverclaimsassertedbydiversityplaintiffswho d  cannotmeettheamountincontroversyrequirement,providedthatat `  leastoneplaintiffintheactionhasajurisdictionallysufficient   claim.SeeStromberg,77F.3dat93032.# X4XXX4*#X4XX X4 h  ` Thesecondinterpretation,originallysuggestedinan d articlebyProfessorPfander #  9      ׀andlateradoptedbytheTenth  CircuitinLeonhardt,emphasizestherequirementin1367(a)that l thedistrictcourtmustfirsthave"originaljurisdiction"overan h actionbeforesupplementaljurisdictioncanapply.SeeLeonhardt,  160F.3dat640(citingPfander).# X4XXX4#X4XX X4ԀOnthisreading,1367 p  preservestheruleinClarkandthusdoesnotsupplysupplemental !l" jurisdictionwhere,asinthiscase,onlyoneofthenamed "$ plaintiffsmeetstheamountincontroversy.AlthoughLeonhardt t$& wasaclassactioncase,theThirdCircuitsubsequentlyendorsed  &p!( itsreasoninginMeritcare,aRule20joindercasewithfacts '#* analogoustothecaseatbar.See166F.3dat22122(citing  Leonhardtwithapproval).# X4XXX4}#X4XX X4 \  ` Werecognizethatplausibletextualargumentscanbemade X infavorofeitherofthesereadings.Forthereasonsthatfollow,   however,weconcludethatLeonhardtandMeritcareembodythebetter `  readingof1367# X4XXX4'#X4XX X4.  \   ` a.Textof1367    ` Webeginwiththetextofthestatute.BedRocLtd.v. d  UnitedStates,124S.Ct.1587,1593(2004).Giventhehistorical `  andlegalbackgroundagainstwhichCongressenacted1367,# X4XXX4#X4XX X4we   thinktheLeonhardt/Meritcareapproachmakesthebestsenseofthe h statutorytext.# X4XXX4<#X4XX X4Still,neitherLeonhardtnorMeritcarefully d explainedthehistoricalanddoctrinalsignificanceofCongress's  choiceofwordsin1367.GiventhelonghistoryoftheJudicial l Codeandtheenormousbodyoflawandscholarshipthatsurrounds h it,thatcontextprovidesacrucialguidetothemeaningofthe  statute.# X4XXX4#X4XX X4SeeNat'lArchives&RecordsAdmin.v.Favish,124S.Ct. p  1570,1579(2004)(assuming,ininterpretingafederalstatute, !l" that"Congresslegislatedagainst[a]backgroundoflaw, "$ scholarship,andhistory")# X4XXX4#X4XX X4.# X4XXX4^#X4XX X4Ԁ# X4XXX4#X4XX X4 t$& # X4XXX4#X4XX X4 ` Thefirstsentenceof1367specifiesthatsupplemental  &p!( jurisdictioncanonlyapplyina# X4XXX4<#X4XX X4Ԁ"civilactionofwhichthe '#* districtcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction."1367(a).That x)$, phraseunambiguouslyinvokesthelanguagethatCongresshasused $+t&. OY    formorethantwohundredyearstoconferjurisdictiononthe  federaldistrictcourtsincivilcases.Nearlyevery \ jurisdictionalgrantinTitle28providesthat"thedistrictcourts X shallhaveoriginaljurisdiction"of"civilaction[s]"withinthe   scopeofthegrant.See,e.g.,28U.S.C.1331(federal `  questions),1332(diversity),1335(interpleader),1337  \  (antitrust),1338(intellectualproperty),1339(postalmatters),   1340(internalrevenue).Suchgrants,inturn,havebeenthe d  subjectofjudicialinterpretationforcenturies.# X4XXX4#X4XX X4E.g., `  Strawbridgev.Curtiss,7U.S.(3Cranch)267(1806)# X4XXX4(#X4XX X4.Byinvoking   theconceptofadistrictcourt's"originaljurisdiction"overa h "civilaction,"# X4XXX4#X4XX X4Congresspresumptivelyincorporatedinto1367the d longstanding,judiciallydevelopeddoctrinesthatdeterminewhether  thosestatutesconfer"originaljurisdiction"overaparticular l civilaction.SeeBuckhannonBd.&CareHome,Inc.v.W.Va.Dep't h ofHealth&HumanRes.,532U.S.598,61415(2001)(Scalia,J.,  concurring)("[W]hereCongressborrowstermsofartinwhichare p  accumulatedthelegaltraditionandmeaningofcenturiesof !l" practice,itpresumablyknowsandadoptstheclusterofideasthat "$ wereattachedtoeachborrowedwordinthebodyoflearningfrom t$& whichitwastaken....# X4XXX4#X4XX X4"(quotingMorissettev.UnitedStates,  &p!( 342U.S.246,263(1952))). '#*  ` # X4XXX4#X4XX X4Thatisimportantbecause,underwellsettledlaw, x)$, joinderandaggregationhavedifferentimplicationsforthe $+t&. existenceof"originaljurisdiction"infederalquestionand  diversitycases.Underthefederalquestionstatute,28U.S.C. \ 1331,theoriginaljurisdictionofthedistrictcourtsis X triggerediftheaction"aris[es]undertheConstitution,laws,or   treatiesoftheUnitedStates."Allthatisrequiredisthe `  federalquestion.Osbornv.BankofUnitedStates,22U.S.(9  \  Wheat)738,822(1824)(Marshall,C.J.);seeCityofChicagov.   Int'lColl.ofSurgeons,522U.S.156,16466(1997).Joinder d  questionsariseonlyafter"originaljurisdiction"isestablished, `  andonlytotheextentthatthecourtseekstodecidenonfederal   questionsincidenttodispositionofthefederalquestion. #  10      ׀See h Osborn,22U.S.at822. d  ` Under1332,bycontrast,joinderandaggregation  questionscanactuallydeterminewhetherthedistrictcourthas l "originaljurisdiction"overtheaction.Joinderaffectsoriginal h jurisdictionthroughthecompletediversityruleofStrawbridgev.  Curtiss,supra.SeeWisconsinDep'tofCorr.v.Schacht,524U.S. p  381,389(1998)("Thepresenceof[a]nondiverseparty !l" automaticallydestroysoriginaljurisdiction....").# X4XXX4#X4XX X4Ԁ "$ AggregationissuesaffectoriginaljurisdictionbecauseClark t$& prohibitsmultipleplaintiffsfromcombiningtheirclaimstoclear  theamountincontroversybar.See306U.S.at589.# X4XXX4F#X4XX X4Strawbridge \ andClark,inturn,arebindinginterpretationsofthediversity X statute.# X4XXX4#X4XX X4SeeStateFarmFire&CasualtyCo.v.Tashire,386U.S.   523,53031(1967)(completediversityruleisstatutory);Snyder `  v.Harris,394U.S.332,336(1969)(Clarkantiaggregationruleis  \  statutory).Unlessbothrulesaresatisfied,thestatutedoesnot   conferoriginaljurisdictiononthedistrictcourt.# X4XXX4U#X4XX X4 Sheldonv. d  Sill,49U.S.(8How.)441,449(1850)("Courtscreatedbystatute `  canhavenojurisdictionbutsuchasthestatuteconfers.").# X4XXX4?#X4XX X4    ` Thus,CongresspreservedbothClarkandStrawbridgeby h providingthat,beforesupplementaljurisdictioncanattach,the d districtcourtmustfirsthave"originaljurisdiction"overthe  action.SeePfander,SupplementalJurisdictionandSection1367: l TheCaseforaSympatheticTextualism,148U.Pa.L.Rev.109,148 h 49(1999)# X4XXX4M#X4XX X4.# X4XXX4s#X4XX X4Inadiversitycase,iftheClarkruleisnotmet,or  ifthepartiesarenotcompletelydiverse,thenthe"original p  jurisdiction"requirementin1367(a)isnotsatisfiedand !l" supplementaljurisdictionwillnotattach.Ontheotherhand,if "$ thepartiesarecompletelydiverseandeachplaintiffseparately t$& meetstheamountincontroversyrequirement,then1332is  &p!( satisfiedandthe"originaljurisdiction"requirementismet.If '#* so,1367willsupportanytransactionallyrelatedclaimsthatthe x)$, plaintiffsmaywishtobringbutonlysolongas1367(b)is $+t&. satisfied,andonlyaslongasoriginaljurisdictionisnot  destroyed.Thislastqualificationisimportantbecauseit \ precludesaplaintifffrom,forexample,using1367tocircumvent X Strawbridgebyamendinghercomplainttoaddanondiverseparty   after"originaljurisdiction"isinitiallyestablished.Cf.Grupo `  Datafluxv.AtlasGlobalGroup,L.P.,124S.Ct.1920,1926(2004)  \  (notingthatapostfilingchangeinthepartiestoanaction,   unlikeachangeintheinitialparties'citizenship,canaffect d  subjectmatterjurisdiction);Am.Fiber&Finishing,Inc.v.Tyco `  HealthcareGroup,L.P.,362F.3d136,14041(1stCir.2004)   (subjectmatterjurisdictionwasdestroyedanddismissalwas h requiredwhereadiversityplaintiffamendeditscomplainttojoin d anondiverseparty)# X4XXX4#X4XX X4.   ` Onthisreadingof1367,# X4XXX4'#X4XX X4ԀBeatriz'sfamilymembers l cannotrelyonsupplementaljurisdictiontosupporttheirclaims: h theircomplaintdoesnotsatisfyClark,so"originaljurisdiction"  failsunder1332.Snyder,394U.S.at336.Asaresult,this p  "civilaction"isnotone"ofwhichthedistrictcourtshave !l" originaljurisdiction,"and1367doesnotapply. "$  ` Wearepersuadedtoadoptthisreadingofthestatutory t$& textforseveralreasons.First,itgiveseffecttoCongress's  &p!( requirementthatthedistrictcourtmusthave"original '#* jurisdiction"overthe"civilaction"beforesupplemental x)$, jurisdictioncanapply.SeeBuiv.DiPaolo,170F.3d232,237(1st $+t&. Cir.1999)(statutesshouldbeinterpretedtogiveeffecttoevery  wordandphrase).Congresscouldhaveappliedadifferenttestin \ 1367(a)forexample,itcouldhavepermittedsupplemental X jurisdictionwheneveranysingleclaimintheactionwouldhave   supportedoriginaljurisdictionifithadbeenbroughtbyitself.& #  11      ׀ `  Butthatisnotwhatthestatutesays.)v #  12      ׀SeePfander,supra,at141  \  (notingthatthestatute"appearstorejectthenotionthata  single,jurisdictionallysufficientclaimwillsupporttheexercise \ ofplenarypendentjurisdictionindiversitymatters").# X4XXX4#X4XX X4 X  ` # X4XXX4#X4XX X4Second,ourreadingof1367's"originaljurisdiction"   requirementisconsistentwiththesettledmeaningofidentical `  languagein28U.S.C.1441,# X4XXX4#X4XX X4Ԁtheremovalstatute.Section1441,  \  like1367,appliesonlyifthe"civilaction"inquestionisone   "ofwhichthedistrictcourts...haveoriginaljurisdiction." d  1441(a).Relyingonthatlanguage,the# X4XXX4#X4XX X4ԀSupremeCourthas `  interpreted1441toprohibitremovalunlesstheentireaction,as   itstandsatthetimeofremoval,couldhavebeenfiledinfederal h courtinthefirstinstance.See,e.g.,# X4XXX4#X4XX X4SygentaCropProtection, d Inc.v.Henson,537U.S.28,33(2002);Okla.TaxComm'nv.Graham,  489U.S.838,840(1989)(percuriam).Section1441hasthusbeen l heldtoincorporatethewellpleadedcomplaintrule,seeCityof h Chicago,522U.S.at163;thecompletediversityrule,# X4XXX4-#X4XX X4see  Caterpillar,Inc.v.Lewis,519U.S.61,73(1996)# X4XXX4#X4XX X4;andrulesfor p  calculatingtheamountincontroversy,seeSt.PaulMercuryIndem. !l" Co.v.RedCabCo.,303U.S.283,29192(1938)# X4XXX4#X4XX X4.# X4XXX4#X4XX X4Bythetime "$ Congressenacted1367in1990,thisinterpretationof1441(a)  waswellsettled.See,e.g.,Okla.TaxComm'n,489U.S.at840; \ CaterpillarInc.v.Williams,482U.S.386,392(1987);Met.Life X Ins.Co.v.Taylor,481U.S.58,63(1987);FranchiseTaxBd.v.   Constr.LaborersVacationTr.,463U.S.1,27(1983).# X4XXX4#X4XX X4Ԁ `   ` Giventhisbackground,itissignificantthatCongress  \  includedthesame"originaljurisdiction"requirementin1367.   SeeErlenbaughv.UnitedStates,409U.S.239,243-44(1972) d  (notingthat"practicalexperienceintheinterpretationof `  statutes[indicatesthat]alegislativebodygenerallyusesa   particularwordwithaconsistentmeaninginagivencontext").# X4XXX4#X4XX X4Ԁ h Congresspurposefullyemployedlanguagein1367(a)thathad d alreadybeeninterpretedin1441toincorporatethetraditional  doctrinesoffederaljurisdictionincludingStrawbridgeand l Clark.# X4XXX4L#X4XX X4 h # X4XXX4#X4XX X4 ` Anotheradvantageofourinterpretationof1367isthat  italignsstatutorysupplementaljurisdiction# X4XXX4#X4XX X4Ԁwiththejudicially p  developeddoctrinesofpendentandancillaryjurisdictionasthey !l" existedpriortoFinley.Congresstooktheopportunityin1367 "$ tocodifythedoctrinesofpendentandancillaryjurisdictionunder t$& asingleheading.SeeCityofChicago,522U.S.at165;Iglesias  &p!( v.Mut.LifeIns.Co.,156F.3d237,241(1stCir.1998)# X4XXX4#X4XX X4.Neither '#* ofthosedoctrinespermittedadiversityplaintifftocircumvent x)$, therequirementsof1332simplybyjoiningherclaiminanaction $+t&. broughtbyanother,jurisdictionallycompetentdiversity  plaintiff.* #  13      ׀Weseenoindicationin1367thatCongresswanted \ toalterthatrule.Notably,whereCongressdidintendtoalter X existinglawin1367# X4XXX4#X4XX X4,it# X4XXX4|#X4XX X4tookpainstodosodirectlyand   unequivocally.See1367(a)(repudiatingFinleyinaseparate `  sentence:"Suchsupplementaljurisdictionshallincludeclaimsthat  \  involvethejoinderorinterventionofadditionalparties.").    ` # X4XXX4#X4XX X4Finally,ourinterpretationexplainstheomissionofRule d  20plaintiffsfrom1367(b).Thiswasthe"apparentincongruity" `  onwhichtheSeventhCircuitreliedinStromberg.See77F.3dat   932.StrombergreasonedthatbecauseCongressomittedclaimsby h Rule20plaintiffsfrom1367(b),itmusthaveintendedtoallow d permissivelyjoinedplaintiffstobringclaimsthat1332would  nototherwisesupport.Id.at93132.Inourview,thereisa l betterexplanation.Thepermissivejoinderofanondiverseparty, h whetherintheoriginalcomplaintorafterwards,destroyscomplete  diversityandthusdeprivesthecourtof"originaljurisdiction." \ Schacht,524U.S.at389# X4XXX4[#X4XX X4;Am.Fiber&Finishing,362F.3dat140 X 41.Likewise,"originaljurisdiction"isdestroyedbythejoinder   ofaRule20plaintiffwho,likeBeatriz'sfamilymembers,cannot `  satisfytheamountincontroversyrequirement.SeeSnyder,394  \  U.S.at33637(notingthattherequirementthateachplaintiff   mustseparatelypasstheamountincontroversybarderivesfrom d  1332)., #  14      ׀Supplementaljurisdictioninsuchacasefailsatthe `  thresholdof1367(a),sotherewassimplynoneedforCongressto   includeRule20plaintiffsinsubsection(b)inordertopreserve h ClarkorStrawbridge.SeePfander,supra,at148. d  ` Afewcourtshaverejectedthisreadingof1367onthe  groundthatnothinginthestatutesuggeststhephrase"original l jurisdiction"hasadifferentmeaningindiversitycasesthanin h federalquestioncases.See,e.g.,Gibsonv.ChryslerCorp.,261  F.3d927,936(9thCir.2001);Paynev.GoodyearTire&RubberCo., p  229F.Supp.2d43,5051(D.Mass.2002)# X4XXX43#X4XX X4.Thatargumentis  misplaced.Therequirementof"originaljurisdiction"in1367(a) \ hasthesamemeaningineverycase:thatsomeunderlyingstatutory X grantoforiginaljurisdictionmustbesatisfied.Whatdiffers   betweenfederalquestionanddiversitycasesisnotthemeaningof `  "originaljurisdiction"butrathertherequirementsofsections  \  1331and1332.Under1331,thesoleissueiswhetherafederal   questionappearsonthefaceoftheplaintiff'swellpleaded d  complaint;theidentityofthepartiesandtheamountstheystand `  torecoverarelargelyirrelevant.Section1332,bycontrast,   predicatesoriginaljurisdictionontheidentityoftheparties h (i.e.,completediversity)andtheirabilitytomeettheamountin d controversyrequirement.Sothe"originaljurisdiction"language  in1367operatesdifferentlyinfederalquestionanddiversity l casesnotbecausethemeaningofthattermvaries,butbecausethe h requirementsoftheunderlyingstatutesaredifferent.# X4XXX44#X4XX X4   ` Nordoesthisreadingofthestatutemake1367(b) p  superfluous.Byitself,1367(a)wouldauthorizeawidevariety !l" ofsupplementalclaimsindiversitycasescounterclaimsby "$ defendants,crossclaimsamongplaintiffs,claimsbyandagainst t$& intervenors,andsoon.Section1367(b)isimportantbecauseit  &p!( ensuresthatthisauthorizationdoesnotfunctionallyunderminethe '#* requirementsof1332.Suppose,forexample,thatthedefendant x)$, inadiversitycaseimpleadsanondiversepartyunderFed.R.Civ. $+t&. P.14.Section1367(b)wouldpreventtheplaintifffromasserting  anonfederalclaimagainsttheimpleadedparty.Thisexample,of \ course,isOwenEquip.&ErectionCo.v.Kroger,437U.S.365 X (1978),inwhichtheSupremeCourtheldthatpermittingancillary   (nowsupplemental)jurisdictionoversuchaclaimwouldallow `  diversityplaintiffsto"defeatthestatutoryrequirementof  \  completediversitybythesimpleexpedientofsuingonlythose   defendantswhowereofdiversecitizenshipandwaitingforthemto d  impleadnondiversedefendants."Id.at374.Section1367(b) `  codifiesKroger'santicircumventionrationale,notmerelyas   againstpartiesimpleadedunderRule14,butinavarietyof h situationsinwhich"originaljurisdiction"maytechnicallyexist d buttheexerciseofsupplementaljurisdiction"wouldbe  inconsistentwiththejurisdictionalrequirementsofsection1332." l SeeRowe,Burbank,&Mengler,ACodaonSupplementalJurisdiction, h 40EmoryL.J.993,995(1991)(explainingthatsubsection(b)  implementsKroger'srationale)# X4XXX4 #X4XX X4.Nothingaboutourinterpretation p  of1367(a)obviatesthisprovision.# X4XXX40#X4XX X4 !l"  ` # X4XXX4#X4XX X4Admittedly,ourreadingof1367isnotperfect.One "$ difficultyisthatwhile1367(b)doesnotmentionRule20 t$& plaintiffs,itdoesreferto"claimsbypersonsproposedtobe  &p!( joinedasplaintiffsunderRule19"areferencethatis '#* technicallyunnecessaryunderourreadingofthestatute,sincethe x)$, joinderofanondiversepartyasanindispensableplaintiffwould $+t&. likewisedestroyoriginaljurisdictionunder1332.1 #  15      ׀See,e.g.,  Gonzalezv.Cruz,926F.2d1,5(1stCir.1991).And,onpolicy \ grounds,therearecertainlylitigationefficienciestobegained X byaninterpretationof1367thatwouldpermitBeatriz'sfamily   members'claimstoproceedinfederalcourtalongsideherown.See `  Stromberg,77F.3dat932.  \   ` Butnoreadingof1367isperfectthealternative   approachembodiedinStromberg,forexample,accordsno d  significancetoCongress'suseoftheterm"originaljurisdiction." `  InlightofthehistoricalandlegalcontexttoCongress's   enactmentof1367,includingthesettledinterpretationof1441 h andtheestablishedlimitsonpendentandancillaryjurisdiction, d weconcludethatCongressintendedtopreservetheClarkanti  aggregationrulebyrequiringthatthedistrictcourtsmusthave  "originaljurisdiction"overthe"civilaction"beforesupplemental \ jurisdictionwilllie. X  ` b.Section1367andtheCompleteDiversityRule    ` Thereisafurtherreasonwhywerejectthealternative `  readingof1367setoutintheSeventhCircuit'sopinionin  \  Stromberg.Aswehavesaid,Stromberg'sreadingofthestatutory   textis,whileimperfect,atleastplausible.Yetitalsohas d  surprisingandfarreachingconsequences:if1367permitsthe `  permissivejoinderofplaintiffswhocannotmeettheamountin   controversyrequirement,thenitalsopermitsthejoinderofnon h diverseplaintiffs.Nothing# X4XXX47#X4XX X4Ԁinthestatutedistinguishesbetween d theClarkamountincontroversyrequirementandthecomplete  diversityruleinStrawbridge.SoifStromberg'sinterpretationof l 1367iscorrect,Congressoverturnednearly200yearsofcaselaw h interpreting1332andauthorizedapotentiallyhugeexpansionof  thefederaldocket.Moreover,itdidsonotbyamendingthe p  diversitystatuteitself,butinsteadbyfailingtomentionRule20 !l" plaintiffsin1367(b).3 #  16      ׀ "$  ` WedonotthinkCongressintended1367toworksucha  revolutioninthelawofdiversityjurisdiction.# X4XXX4#X4XX X4ԀCf.# X4XXX4|"#X4XX X4Whitmanv. \ Am.TruckingAssns.,531U.S.457,467-68(2001)("Congress... X doesnotalterthefundamentaldetailsofaregulatoryschemein   vaguetermsorancillaryprovisions--itdoesnot,onemightsay, `  hideelephantsinmouseholes.").# X4XXX4"#X4XX X4ԀCongresshaslongmaintaineda  \  policyofrestrictingdiversityjurisdiction,notexpandingit,   chieflybyraisingtheamountincontroversybar.  #  17      ׀Indeed,the d  samecongressionalFederalCourtsStudyCommitteethatproposed `  overturningFinleyandcodifyingsupplementaljurisdictionalso   proposedeliminatingmostformsofdiversityjurisdiction.See h FederalCourtsStudyCommittee,ReportoftheFederalCourtsStudy d Committee39(1990)("Webelievethatdiversityjurisdictionshould  bevirtuallyeliminated....[N]ootherstepwilldoanywhere \ nearlyasmuchtoreducefederalcaseloadpressuresandcontainthe X growthofthefederaljudiciary.").Congressdidnotacceptthat   proposal,tobesure,butthathardlysuggestsitwantedtoexpand `  diversityjurisdiction.Onthecontrary,onlyafewyearsafter  \  enacting1367,Congressagainraisedtheamountincontroversy   barinanefforttoreducethediversitycaseloadinthefederal d  courts.SeeFederalCourtsImprovementActof1996,Pub.L.No. `  104317,205,110Stat.3847(raisingtheminimumamountin   controversyfrom$50,000to$75,000).# X4XXX4Z$#X4XX X4TheSupremeCourt,too,has h repeatedlyadmonishedthatinlightoftheburgeoningfederal d caseload,diversityjurisdictionmustbenarrowlyconstrued.See,  e.g.,Snyder,394U.S.at34041;CityofIndianapolisv.Chase l Nat'lBank,314U.S.63,76(1941);Healyv.Ratta,292U.S.263, h 270(1934).   ` Againstthisbackground,itisimplausibletousthat p  CongressunderminedStrawbridgeandoverturnedClarkbysuchan !l" unlikelyandobscuredeviceastheomissionofRule20plaintiffs "$ from1367(b).Nixonv.Mo.Mun.League,124S.Ct.1555,1564 t$& (2004)# X4XXX4*#X4XX X4Ԁ(refusingtoadoptatextuallyplausibleinterpretationof  &p!( astatutebecauseitwas"farfetchedthatCongressmeant...to '#* startdownsucharoadintheabsenceofanyclearersignal"); x)$, Chisomv.Roemer,501U.S.380,396&n.23(1991)("[I]fCongress $+t&. hadsuchanintent,Congresswouldhavemadeitexplicitinthe  statute,oratleastsomeoftheMemberswouldhaveidentifiedor \ mentionedit....Congress'silenceinthisregardcanbe X likenedtothedogthatdidnotbark.").# X4XXX4W.#X4XX X4    ` Moreover,CongresshascontinuedtoregardStrawbridgeas `  goodlawevenafter1367.Since1990,Congresshasenactedat  \  leasttwostatuteslimitingtheruleofcompletediversity.Each   time,Congresshasdonesoclearlyandconspicuously,carefully d  circumscribingthesituationsinwhichStrawbridgewillnotapply. `  SeeMultiparty,MultiforumTrialJurisdictionActof2002,Pub.L.   No.107273,11020(b)(1)(A),116Stat.1758(codifiedat28 h U.S.C.1369)(grantingthedistrictcourtsoriginaljurisdiction d over"anycivilactioninvolvingminimaldiversity"betweenadverse  partiesarisingfromanysingleaccidentinwhich75natural l personsdied,andfurtherdefining"minimaldiversity"inthecase h ofbothnaturalandcorporateparties); #  18      ׀Y2KAct,Pub.L.No.106  37,15(c),113Stat.185(1999)(codifiedat15U.S.C.6614(c)) p  (grantingthedistrictcourtsoriginaljurisdictionover"anyY2K !l" actionthatisbroughtasaclassaction,"exceptwherea "$ "substantialmajority"oftheplaintiffclassisfromthesame t$& stateasthe"primary"defendantsandtheclaimsintheactionwill  begovernedprimarilybythelawofthatstate). \  ` CongressthusknowshowtolimitStrawbridgeclearlywhen X itwishes,anditwouldhavehadlittlereasontoenactthese   statutesifitbelievedthatithadalreadyunderminedthecomplete `  diversityruleinthesupplementaljurisdictionstatute.Plainly  \  itdidnotsobelieve,andthatunderstandinginformsourchoice   amongplausibleinterpretationsof1367.FDAv.Brown& d  WilliamsonTobaccoCorp.,529U.S.120,143(2000)("Atthetimea `  statuteisenacted,itmayhavearangeofplausiblemeanings.Over   time,however,subsequentactscanshapeorfocusthosemeanings. h ...Thisisparticularlysowherethescopeoftheearlier d statuteisbroadbutthesubsequentstatutesmorespecifically  addressthetopicathand.").# X4XXX41#X4XX X4 l  ` c.LegislativeHistoryof1367 h  ` Finally,# X4XXX4;#X4XX X4thelegislativehistoryof1367strongly  corroboratestheconclusionthatCongressdidnotintendto p  repudiateClarkorStrawbridge.# X4XXX4t<#X4XX X4ԀResorttolegislativehistoryis !l" appropriatewhere,ashere,thetextofastatuteissusceptibleto "$ twotextuallyplausibleinterpretations.Lapinev.Townof t$& Wellesley,304F.3d90,97(1stCir.2002);HernandezColonv.Sec.  &p!( ofLabor,835F.2d958,960(1stCir.1988).Thatisparticularly '#* trueinthiscase,giventhatoursistercircuitshavereached x)$, conflictinganswerstothesamequestionbasedonthesame $+t&. statutorytext.Cf.InreBankVestCapitalCorp.,360F.3d291,  297(1stCir.2004)("[W]earehard-pressedtoendorseany'plain \ meaning'argumentwhere,ashere,otherfederalcourtshavereached X conflictinganswerstothesamequestionbasedonthesame'plain'   language."). `   ` Thelegislativehistoryof1367issomewhatmuddledin  \  itsdetails,butonefactiscertain:Congressdidnotbelieve   that1367wouldmakesignificantchangestothelawofdiversity d  jurisdiction.TheHouseJudiciaryCommitteereporttheonly `  congressionalreportconcerningtheprovisionthatbecame1367   statedthatthebillwasintendedto"essentiallyrestorethepre h Finleyunderstandingsoftheauthorizationforandlimitson... d supplementaljurisdiction."H.Rep.No.101734,at28(Sept.10,  1990),reprintedin1990U.S.C.C.A.N.6860,at6874.Thesame l reportmadeclearthatCongressanticipatednosweepingchangesin h theoperationof1332:"Indiversitycases,thedistrictcourts  mayexercisesupplementaljurisdiction,exceptwhendoingsowould p  beinconsistentwiththejurisdictionalrequirementsofthe !l" diversitystatute."Id. "$  ` Thebill'ssponsorssimilarlydidnotbelievethat1367 t$& wouldalterthefundamentalrulesofdiversityjurisdiction.  &p!( SenatorGrassleystatedthatthebilldidnot"representmajor '#* changesinthelaw."136Cong.Rec.atS17578(Oct.27,1990).He x)$, andothersponsorsrepeatedlydescribedthebillas $+t&. "noncontroversial."See,e.g.,id.;id.atH13313(Oct.27,1990)  (statementofRep.Kastenmeier).AndCongresstreateditthatway \ Єcommitteehearingsonthebilllastedonlyoneday.SeeRowe, X Burbank,&Mengler,supra,at1005(describingtheprocessafforded   tothebillinCongressas"meager").Atnopointinthe `  legislativeprocessdidanymemberofCongresssuggestthat1367  \  wouldoverturnClark,undercutthecompletediversityrule,or   otherwisedramaticallyexpandfederaldiversityjurisdiction.5 #  19      # X4XXX4s=#X4XX X4 d    III.  `  K ` Weholdthat1367doesnotauthorizejurisdictionover ( Beatriz'sfamilymembers'claims.Thoseclaimswouldhavebeen  barredunderClarkbefore1990,andweconcludethatCongressdid 0 notupsetthatrulewhenitoverturnedFinleyandcodifiedthe , priorlawofpendentandancillaryjurisdictionin1367.6 #  20          ` Thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtis affirmed asto  Beatriz'sfamilymembers.AstoBeatriz,thejudgmentis vacated  x andthecaseis remanded .Onremand,Beatrizmayelecttoproceed @ aloneinfederalcourtor,ifshewishes,voluntarilydismissher  X complaintsothatsheandherfamilymayrefileinthePuertoRico   courts.# X4XXX4J# `      (Dissentingopinionfollows)    rO    A%9XXdXdA  =%9XXdXXd=X4XX X48%9XdXXd8!" ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge(Concurringinpart,dissenting  inpartII.B). IconcurinpartII.Aofthemajorityopinion.I x alsoagreethatcourtsarewisetotreadcarefullywhendeciding @ cases,suchasthis,whereacourtmustinterpretastatute  < definingtheparametersofitsownpowers.Myagreementwiththe   majorityopinion,however,endsthere. D    ` Inanattempttolimitdiversityjurisdiction,the @  majorityopinionmixesa"sympathetictextualist"approachto   statutoryinterpretationwithadashoflegislativeintenttoreach H  aconclusionthatiscontrarytotheplainlanguageof1367.The D ironyofthemajorityopinionisthatitespousesthevirtueof  legislativeintent,yetadoptsareadingof1367thatwasnever L articulatedbyanyCongresspersonortheirstaff,byanyjudgeor H jurist,norbyanyacademics,or,mostimportantly,byanyofthe  verydraftersofthestatutefromthetimethestatutewasadopted P in1990,untilsuch"intent"wasjustespousedin1998.Section L 1367wasthelawforoversevenyearsbeforeanewalternative   interpretationof1367wasproposedbyProfessorPfanderand T!" adoptedbytheTenthCircuit.SeeLeonhardtv.W.SugarCo.,160 #P$ F.3d631,639n.6(10thCir.1998).Thisdubiousapproachhasnow $& beenadoptedbythiscircuit,despitethefactthatitignoresthe X&!( plainmeaningof1367,causesthesamewordinthestatuteto (T#* havetwomeanings,andmakesanentireprovisionof1367 )%, meaningless. \+&.  ` ItisbecauseIbelievethatacourt'sroleislimitedto  applyingthestatute,notchangingthestatute,thatIrespectfully \ dissent.Indoingso,Ijointhemajorityofoursistercircuits X thathaveinterpreted28U.S.C.1367tograntadistrictcourt   jurisdictiontohearaplaintiff'sclaimthatdoesnotmeetthe `  amountincontroversy,ifacoplaintiff'sclaimsatisfiesthe  \  amountincontroversyrequirement.   @  I.Joinderandclassactions  d   ` Beforeanalyzing1367anditsmeaning,oneobservation ,|  mustbemade.Themajoritybeginsitsanalysisof1367bynoting ( thatoursistercircuitsareevenlysplitontheissueofwhether  1367allowsaplaintiffwhodoesnotindependentlymeetthe 0 amountincontroversyrequirementof1332toremaininfederal , court.Thisstatementismisleading.Whileitistruethatonly  twocircuitcourts,theThirdandSeventhCircuits,haveaddressed 4 1367'sapplicabilityoutsidethecontextofaclassaction,in 0 reality,fivecircuitcourtshaveinterpreted1367toallowa   plaintiffwhodoesnotindependentlymeettheamountincontroversy 8!" requirementof1332toremaininfederalcourt,whereasthree "4$ circuitcourtsrequirethemtotaketheirclaimstostatecourt.# #  21      ׀ $& Ratherthanaddressingthesecasesandtheirarguments,the  majorityopinioncaststhemasidebyarguingthattheclassaction \ contextdiffersfromtheRule20joindercontext.Sucha X characterizationismisguidedforseveralreasons.    ` First,themajorityopinionfailstoacknowledgethatfor `  1367purposes,ClarkandZahnstandforthesameprinciple.In  \  Clarkv.PaulGray,Inc.,theSupremeCourtheldthateach   plaintiff'sclaimmustmeettheamountincontroversyrequirement. d  306U.S.583(1939).InZahnv.Int'lPaperCo.,theSupremeCourt `  heldthateachclassmember'sclaimmustmeettheamountin   controversyrequirement.414U.S.291,301(1973).Thus, h Clark"isthenonclassanalogtoZahn.Section1367,onitsface, d overrulesClark,justasitoverrulesZahn."RichardD.Freer,The  CauldronBoils:SupplementalJurisdiction,AmountinControversy, l andDiversityofCitizenshipClassActions,53EmoryL.J.55,58 h  n.19(2004).   ` Thispositionhasbeenadoptedbyeverycircuitcourtto   considertheissue.AstheSeventhCircuitnoted,"1367doesnot \ distinguishclassactionsfromothercases...[andsection1367] X affectsClarkandZahnequally."StrombergMetalWorks,77F.3dat   931.- #  22      ׀Similarly,theThirdCircuit,theonlycircuitwithwhich `  themajorityalignsitself,admitsthat"thelineofcasesfrom  \  PineltoZahnappliesequallytojoindercasesandclassaction."   MeritcareInc.,166F.3dat218.. #  23      ׀ThepurposeofZahnwasto d  clarifythat,foramountincontroversypurposes,theproposition `  establishedinClarkappliesintheclassactioncontext.See   Zahn,414U.S.at301;Snyderv.Harris,394U.S.332,33537 h (1969)(treatingclassactionsthesameascaseswithjoined d plaintiffsforpurposesofaggregationrules).   ` Second,ifadistinctionweretobemadebetweenclass l actionsandjoinder,thedistinctionwouldfavorallowing h supplementaljurisdictioninjoindersituations,andnotinclass  actionsituations,as"itishardtoavoidremarkingthatallowing p  thousandsofsmallclaimsintofederalcourtviatheclassdevice !l" isasubstantiallygreaterexpansionofjurisdictionthanis  allowingasinglependentparty."StrombergMetalWorks,77F.3d \ at931.Thus,itis"easytoimaginewantingtooverturnClarkbut X notZahn;itismuchhardertoimaginewantingtooverturnZahnbut   notClark,andwehavenoreasontobelievethatCongressharbored `  suchasecretdesire."Id.  \  @l l  II.Theplainmeaningof1367     ` Wheninterpretingastatute,thestartingpointisthe   statute'stext.SeeBennettv.CityofHolyoke,362F.3d1,9(1st ,|  Cir.2004).Section1367(a)providesthatdistrictcourtsshall ( havesupplementaljurisdictionoverclaimsthatformpartofthe  samecaseorcontroversyasanycivilactionofwhichth