Opinion ID: 669097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction Following Dismissal of COBRA Claim

Text: 14 The problem in this case arose when the district court dismissed the COBRA claim against Bates and, deciding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction as a result, dismissed all state-law claims against Bates as well. The district court stated, What is left of the Plaintiffs' claims against these two Defendants [Bates] are claims asserted under Georgia law and, there being no diversity of citizenship, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. District Court Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2 (Apr. 2, 1993) (R2-44-2). It is unclear from this statement whether the district court decided that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction based solely on the lack of diversity, whether it determined that section 1367 did not permit the application of supplemental jurisdiction, or whether it refused, in its discretion, to exercise permissible supplemental jurisdiction. The Georgia and Alabama Plaintiffs dispute the district court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims against Bates, claiming that such jurisdiction is justified under either diversity or supplemental jurisdiction. We analyze these two possibilities in turn.
15 As demonstrated above, the Romero exception to the complete diversity rule properly allowed the citizenship of the Georgia Plaintiffs to be ignored for the purpose of diversity analysis at the inception of the case. The Georgia Plaintiffs had an independent basis of original jurisdiction--a COBRA federal question claim--against both Bates and Patterson at that time. The Alabama Plaintiffs would have us extend that analysis to the period following the dismissal of the COBRA claim against Bates. We decline this invitation because it would expand the Romero exception beyond its legal and logical bounds. 16 The Romero exception to the Strawbridge complete diversity rule allows a court to ignore a particular party for diversity purposes because that party is properly before the court on a separate ground of original federal jurisdiction. Romero, 358 U.S. at 381, 79 S.Ct. at 485. This exception is logical because it allows claims that could each be brought separately in federal court to be tried in the same case. Hiram Walker & Sons, 877 F.2d at 1512. This was the posture when the Georgia Plaintiffs maintained a non-frivolous federal question COBRA claim against both Bates and Patterson. However, the district court's dismissal of the COBRA claim against Bates removed the Georgia Plaintiffs' independent basis of jurisdiction against Bates. The Alabama Plaintiffs would have us find that it is still proper to ignore the Georgia Plaintiffs' citizenship, as the Georgia Plaintiffs still have an independent federal question basis for being before the district court--their COBRA claim against Patterson. 17 While it is true that the COBRA claim against Patterson is a valid independent basis for the Georgia Plaintiffs' presence in federal court against Patterson, it does not serve as an independent basis for their presence on claims against Bates. To use an independent basis of federal jurisdiction by the Georgia Plaintiffs against Patterson to justify ignoring the citizenship of the Georgia Plaintiffs in determining the Alabama Plaintiffs' diversity jurisdiction over both Patterson and Bates would be to turn the Romero exception on its head. We have found no case that even mentions this possible application of Romero, much less endorses it. The logic underlying the exception to the complete diversity rule implies that in order for a party to be ignored in the diversity analysis, that party must have an independent basis of jurisdiction against all relevant opposing parties. To hold otherwise could conceivably open a back door to the abuses the complete diversity rule was designed to prevent. We decline to expand the Romero exception this far. 18 The Alabama Plaintiffs also appear to argue that even if the Romero exception does not apply directly to the fact that the Georgia Plaintiffs continue to have a valid federal question claim against Patterson, the exception is still viable since the Georgia Plaintiffs have an independent basis of federal jurisdiction against Bates--supplemental jurisdiction. The existence of such jurisdiction, which would of necessity be grounded in supplemental party jurisdiction, is discussed later in this opinion. Even if we were to hold that the Georgia Plaintiffs did have supplemental jurisdiction over Bates, however, that is insufficient as an independent basis of jurisdiction under the Romero exception. In order to meet the Romero exception, the non-diverse party must have an independent ground of original federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Baker v. J.C. Penney Co., 496 F.Supp. 922, 924 (N.D.Ga.1980) ([I]t is only when there is an independent basis of original federal jurisdiction (as opposed to pendent or ancillary jurisdiction) against non-diverse parties, ... that diverse and non-diverse [parties] may be joined in the same action.). Supplemental jurisdiction is, by its very nature, not original but additional; that is, it relies on the existence of some other original basis of jurisdiction. A case may not be brought in federal court on the grounds of supplemental jurisdiction alone. By definition, such jurisdiction must be attached to another basis of jurisdiction. 6 To allow the Georgia Plaintiffs' supplemental party claims against Bates to serve as a basis for ignoring the Georgia Plaintiffs in the diversity analysis would exceed the scope of the Romero exception. We decline to make this extension. Therefore, the district court was correct in holding that there is no diversity jurisdiction for the Alabama Plaintiffs against Bates in this case.
19 The second possible basis of jurisdiction in this case is the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. It might be anchored to either the COBRA claim by the Georgia Plaintiffs against Patterson or the now-dismissed COBRA claim by the Georgia Plaintiffs against Bates. The application of supplemental jurisdiction is statutorily controlled by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367. 8 The first part of that statute, section 1367(a), defines the permissible boundaries for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction; that is, it delineates the power of the federal courts to hear supplemental claims and claims against supplemental parties. The second relevant portion for this case is section 1367(c), which describes the occasions on which a federal court may exercise its discretion not to hear a supplemental claim or admit a supplemental party, despite the power of the court to hear such a claim. 9 The power of the district court to maintain jurisdiction over the claims against Bates can be analyzed in several steps. 20 First, the only basis of original federal jurisdiction in this case, following the dismissal of the COBRA claim against Bates, is the COBRA claim against Patterson. The Georgia Plaintiffs are the only plaintiffs involved in this claim. Hence, the Georgia Plaintiffs and Patterson are properly before the district court on that COBRA claim. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. 21 Secondly, we examine the jurisdiction of the court to hear the state-law claims of the Georgia Plaintiffs against Patterson. This is the exercise of what was traditionally known as pendent claim jurisdiction. Such exercise in this case is entirely proper. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350-51, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988) (applying Gibbs standard); Rosen v. Chang, 758 F.Supp. 799, 803 (D.R.I.1991) (applying section 1367). The relevant parties are before the court on an independent ground of original federal jurisdiction. By its language, section 1367(a) authorizes a court to hear supplemental claims to the full extent allowed by the case or controversy standard of Article III. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a). In this case, the state-law claims of the Georgia Plaintiffs against Patterson involve the same occurrences as the COBRA claim--two presentments of Paulette Palmer to Patterson, the alleged mistreatment or non-treatment of her, and her resulting death. While all the elements of the federal and state claims are certainly not identical, and in some cases are quite different, each claim involves the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence. This commonality is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional minimum required by section 1367(a). Hence, jurisdiction over the Georgia Plaintiffs' state-law claims against Patterson was within the power of the district court. 22 The third inquiry involves the state-law claims of the Alabama Plaintiffs against Patterson. This is traditional supplemental jurisdiction as well, what was formerly known as pendent party jurisdiction. Pendent party jurisdiction was met in this country with mixed acceptance for many years, culminating in the Supreme Court's pronouncement that while it was not unconstitutional, and not even unauthorized in every situation, there was no general congressional authorization for its exercise. Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989). Because the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the boundaries of which are set by Congress, subject to the Constitution, congressional authorization was required for pendent party jurisdiction. See Ortega v. Schramm, 922 F.2d 684, 692 n. 9 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam). Such authorization was specifically provided by section 1367(a), which states, supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a); see also McCray v. Holt, 777 F.Supp. 945, 947-48 (S.D.Fla.1991). In this case there is no original federal jurisdiction for any claims by the Alabama Plaintiffs against Patterson. However, Patterson is properly in federal court on the COBRA claims, and the state-law claims are validly raised against Patterson by the Georgia Plaintiffs, as discussed above. Hence, these causes of action were already properly present in federal court. These claims by the Alabama Plaintiffs involve the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence as the Georgia Plaintiffs' state-law claims against Patterson. The district court therefore had the power to exercise jurisdiction over these claims by the Alabama Plaintiffs against Patterson. See Rodriguez v. Pacificare of Texas, Inc., 980 F.2d 1014, 1017-19 (5th Cir.) (allowing supplemental state-law claims against physician anchored to ERISA claim against hospital), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2456, 124 L.Ed.2d 671 (1993); McCray, 777 F.Supp. at 947-48 (applying section 1367); Jones v. Village of Villa Park, 784 F.Supp. 533, 535 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.1992) (same). 23 The three aspects of jurisdiction previously analyzed are manifest in this case. They all address the federal court exercising jurisdiction over federal and state claims against Patterson. At issue in this case is the dismissal of state-law claims against Bates. It is therefore apparent that the district court at least impliedly exercised the above-discussed supplemental jurisdiction in retaining jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Patterson. Such exercise of jurisdiction was well within the court's power and discretion. 24 It is at this point our discussion diverges onto two separate paths. Two possible bases exist for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims of both the Georgia Plaintiffs and the Alabama Plaintiffs against Bates. Because the district court did not state whether it was dismissing these claims because it lacked the power to hear them under section 1367(a), or because it decided, in its discretion under section 1367(c), not to exercise that power, we must analyze both potential bases. We do so, holding that the district court had the power under either method to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Bates, and remand to the district court for it to consider section 1367(c) in deciding whether to exercise its power in this situation. 25
26 Under this line of inquiry, we analyze the power of the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims of both the Georgia Plaintiffs and the Alabama Plaintiffs against Bates based on the dismissed COBRA claim of the Georgia Plaintiffs against Bates. Both the Georgia Plaintiffs' and the Alabama Plaintiffs' state-law claims, as discussed previously, were valid supplemental claims at the time of the filing of the case and for the approximately one-year period prior to the dismissal of the COBRA claim against Bates. These supplemental state-law claims are not required to be dismissed along with the underlying claim. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. at 619 n. 7 (applying Gibbs standards); Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 403-05, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 1213-14, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970) (same); United States Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 986, 1004-05 (11th Cir.1993) (same). Section 1367(a) provides no such mandate. Indeed, we have recently held that such dismissal may be an abuse of discretion where the state statute of limitations expired prior to dismissal of the anchor federal claim. Edwards v. Okaloosa County, 5 F.3d 1431, 1433-35 (11th Cir.1993) (per curiam). This power to retain jurisdiction after the dismissal of the underlying federal claim has not been altered by section 1367. Burns-Toole v. Byrne, 11 F.3d 1270, 1276 (5th Cir.1994); Evans v. City of Marlin, 986 F.2d 104, 109 n. 10 (5th Cir.1993). Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to dismiss a supplemental claim or party when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3). It is unclear, however, whether the district court dismissed the state-law claims in this case because it believed that it lacked the power to hear them, or pursuant to the exercise of its discretion under section 1367(c). Therefore, we hold that the district court retained the power to hear the state-law claims against Bates after dismissing the underlying COBRA claims and remand to the district court for consideration of, and explication upon, the relevant discretionary elements of section 1367(c). 27
28 We must resolve two issues in determining the power of the district court to exercise jurisdiction over Bates based on the COBRA claim of the Georgia Plaintiffs against Patterson--the state-law claims by the Georgia Plaintiffs and those by the Alabama Plaintiffs. First, we look to the claims by the Georgia Plaintiffs. This analysis is virtually identical to the exercise of jurisdiction over the claims of the Alabama Plaintiffs against Patterson; that is, it is traditional pendent party jurisdiction. Once again, section 1367(a) permits such jurisdiction to the full breadth allowed by Article III of the Constitution. As discussed above, the Georgia Plaintiffs have properly invoked supplemental claim jurisdiction to present their state-law claims against Patterson in federal court. These are identical to the claims the Georgia Plaintiffs have raised against Bates. They include precisely the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence. Such claims are properly considered to be the joinder of an additional party to claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a); see Urban v. King, 783 F.Supp. 560, 563 (D.Kan.1992). Therefore, this direct application of supplemental or pendent party jurisdiction is within the power of the district court. 29 Finally, we reach the most difficult inquiry: the power of the district court to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims of the Alabama Plaintiffs against Bates. Since we have found no case approving the exercise of such supplemental jurisdiction, this appears to be an issue of first impression. This inquiry involves a direct application of neither supplemental claim nor supplemental party jurisdiction. Rather, this is, in some respects, the linking of the two together. Neither the Alabama Plaintiffs nor Bates is present in federal court under an independent basis of original federal jurisdiction. Rather, both are within the reach of the court pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction. In this situation, therefore, we are applying supplemental jurisdiction to claims and parties that are before the court themselves solely on a supplemental jurisdictional basis. As a general proposition, we do not favor this type of layering supplemental jurisdiction upon supplemental jurisdiction. The precise facts of this case, however, place such a jurisdictional pirouette within the power of the court under section 1367(a). There are no new claims or parties affirmatively being brought before the court by this exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. The Alabama Plaintiffs are legitimately before the court on claims against Patterson. Bates is within the court's jurisdictional reach, subject to its discretion, on the state-law claims of the Georgia Plaintiffs. Finally, the claims asserted by the Alabama Plaintiffs against Bates are nearly identical to those asserted by the Georgia Plaintiff against Bates. This situation, therefore, merely represents an application of jurisdiction to parties and claims that are already before the court. Were the district court, in its discretion, to agree to exercise jurisdiction over all other claims previously discussed, there would be no additional judicial action required to allow these claims to go forward. Once again, the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence are present in these claims as in those previously discussed. Hence, they are within the court's power, as form[ing] part of the same case or controversy under Article III. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a). 30 The suggested analysis must be pursued methodically. As noted above, each state-law claim and each party is linked, finally, to a single COBRA claim, the only surviving basis of original federal jurisdiction. It is undisputed that the federal court has jurisdiction over the Georgia Plaintiffs' COBRA claim against Patterson. Once that is accepted, the logic and rationale behind supplemental jurisdiction allow the court to entertain the related state-law claims under section 1367(a) and the Constitution. We emphasize, however, that the foregoing discussion addresses only the power of the federal court to exercise jurisdiction in this case. The application of the court's discretion, pursuant to section 1367(c), may result in its determination that, despite its power to do so, it will not exercise jurisdiction in this case.