Opinion ID: 169956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subject M atter Jurisdiction

Text: Our proper starting point is determining whether the district court correctly decided it had jurisdiction, an issue that we review de novo. City of Albuquerque v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 379 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 2004). The claims against M r. Hipple neither arise under federal law nor involve diverse parties. The district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the Receiver’s claims rested on its determination that the claims were ancillary to those asserted in the SEC action already pending before it. M r. Hipple argues that the supplemental jurisdiction statute is inapplicable because the Receiver’s claims against him are not “so related” to the SEC’s claims that they “form part of the same case or controversy” within the meaning of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The district court rightly rejected this argument. The Supreme Court recognized over 100 years ago that a federal receiver may sue in the court of his appointment “to accomplish the ends sought and directed by the suit in which the appointment was made,” and that “such action or suit is regarded as ancillary” to the court’s original subject matter jurisdiction. Pope v. Louisville, N.A. & C. Ry., 173 U.S. 573, 577 (1899); see Oils, Inc. v. Blankenship, 145 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1944) (“A federal court, which has appointed a receiver in a proceeding of which it has -11- jurisdiction, has jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding to collect or recover assets.”); Tcherepnin v. Franz, 485 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (7th Cir. 1973) (same quoting Pope). Here, the district court appointed the Receiver to marshal and preserve the assets of M errill Scott for the benefit of M errill Scott’s creditors, and this action against M r. Hipple is consistent with these goals. Even though, as M r. Hipple argues, the cases on which the district court relied predate the supplemental jurisdiction statute, he has raised no argument to persuade this court that it need not follow the principal announced in Pope, nor has he cited any authority contrary to Pope. Therefore, we conclude the court properly relied upon its ancillary jurisdiction and did not need an independent basis upon which to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the Receiver’s claims. See Tcherepnin, 485 F.2d at 1256. M r. Hipple’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was properly denied.