I made a correction based on something I am only 85% sure about. However, the modified version is surely correct; at worst it just does not provide as much information as the previous page. I do not believe it makes any difference for supplemental jurisdiction purposes whether it's a plaintiff or a defendant who destroys complete diversity. I understand the textual argument based on 1367(b)'s use of "by plaintiffs." However, in Exxon the Supreme Court noted that this provision was superfluous, because there is no original jurisdiction, and thus nothing up which to base supplemental jurisdiction, when there is not complete diversity. Thus, a defendant in a diversity case cannot use supplemental jurisdiction as the foundation for a counterclaim against a nondiverse party. --126.96.36.199 16:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
28 U.S.C.§ 1367 renders both ancillary jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction archaic terms with no actual import beyond historical curiosity. The two concepts--already functionally identical--were merged into a new concept of supplemental jurisdiction by the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, which established § 1367 as it stands. The corresponding articles should thus be merged with this page, probably as a "History" section. I think anyone who knows the first thing about these matters will agree. Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I see no problem with the move. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Support. I don't think that the 1990 revision to Title 28 is a compelling reason to merge (a concept does not get whited-out just because it is no longer current; i.e., we still have the article Soviet Union, and that's been gone for almost as long as ancillary and pendent jurisdiction). But nonetheless, because the concepts ancillary jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction are so related to each other, and to supplemental jurisdiction; and because both are stubs that will never grow into much more than they are today, I support merging both articles to supplemental jurisdiction. TJRC (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)