Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

Citation125 S. Ct. 2611,545 U.S. 546,162 L. Ed. 2d 502
Decision Date23 June 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-70.,04-70.
PartiesEXXON MOBIL CORP. <I>v.</I> ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

In No. 04-70, Exxon dealers filed a class action against Exxon Corporation, invoking the Federal District Court's 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a) diversity jurisdiction. After the dealers won a jury verdict, the court certified the case for interlocutory review on the question whether it had properly exercised § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of class members who had not met § 1332(a)'s minimum amount-in-controversy requirement. The Eleventh Circuit upheld this extension of supplemental jurisdiction. In No. 04-79, a girl and her family sought damages from Star-Kist Foods, Inc., in a diversity action. The District Court granted Star-Kist summary judgment, finding that none of the plaintiffs had met the amount-in-controversy requirement. The First Circuit ruled that the girl, but not her family, had alleged the requisite amount, and then held that supplemental jurisdiction over the family's claims was improper because original jurisdiction is lacking in a diversity case if one plaintiff fails to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Held: Where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies § 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement, § 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the requisite amount. Pp. 552-572.

(a) Although district courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a statutory basis, once a court has original jurisdiction over some claims in an action, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims arising from the same case or controversy. See Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715. This expansive interpretation does not apply to § 1332's complete diversity requirement, for incomplete diversity destroys original jurisdiction with respect to all claims, leaving nothing to which supplemental claims can adhere. But other statutory prerequisites, including the federal-question and amount-in-controversy requirements can be analyzed claim by claim. Before § 1367 was enacted, every plaintiff had to separately satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583; Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U. S. 291, and the grant of original jurisdiction over claims involving particular parties did not itself confer supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims involving other parties, Finley v. United States, 490 U. S. 545, 556. Pp. 552-557.

(b) All parties here agree that § 1367 overturned Finley, but there is no warrant for assuming that is all it did. To determine § 1367's scope requires examination of the statute's text in light of context, structure, and related statutory provisions. Section 1367(a) is a broad grant of supplemental jurisdiction over other claims within the same case or controversy, as long as the action is one in which district courts would have original jurisdiction. Its last sentence makes clear that this grant extends to claims involving joinder or intervention of additional parties. The question here is whether a diversity case in which the claims of some, but not all, plaintiffs satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement qualifies as a "civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction," § 1367(a). Pp. 557-558.

(c) The answer must be yes. When a well-pleaded complaint has at least one claim satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement, and there are no other relevant jurisdictional defects, the district court, beyond all question, has original jurisdiction over that claim. A court with original jurisdiction over a single claim in the complaint has original jurisdiction over a "civil action" under § 1367(a), even if that action comprises fewer claims than were included in the complaint. Once a court has original jurisdiction over the action, it can then decide whether it has a constitutional and statutory basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over other claims in the action. Section 1367(b), which contains exceptions to § 1367(a)'s broad rule, does not withdraw supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of the additional parties here. In fact, its exceptions support this Court's conclusion. Pp. 559-560.

(d) The Court cannot accept the alternative view, or its supporting theories, that a district court lacks original jurisdiction over a civil action unless it has original jurisdiction over every claim in the complaint. The "indivisibility theory"—that all claims must stand or fall as a single, indivisible action—is inconsistent with the whole notion of supplemental jurisdiction and is belied by this Court's practice of allowing federal courts to cure jurisdictional defects by dismissing the offending parties instead of the entire action. And the statute's broad and general language does not permit the theory to apply in diversity cases when it does not apply in federal-question cases. The "contamination theory"— that inclusion of a claim or party falling outside the district court's original jurisdiction contaminates every other claim in the complaint—makes sense with respect to the complete diversity requirement because a nondiverse party's presence eliminates the justification for a federal forum. But it makes little sense with regard to the amount-in-controversy requirement, which is meant to ensure that a dispute is sufficiently important to warrant federal-court attention. It is fallacious to suppose, simply from the proposition that § 1332 imposes both requirements, that the contamination theory germane to the former also applies to the latter. This Court has already considered and rejected a virtually identical argument in the closely analogous removal-jurisdiction context. See Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U. S. 156. Pp. 560-566.

(e) In light of the statute's text and structure, § 1367's only plausible reading is that a court has original jurisdiction over a civil action comprising the claims for which there is no jurisdictional defect. Though a single nondiverse party can contaminate every other claim in a lawsuit, contamination does not occur with respect to jurisdictional defects going only to the substantive importance of individual claims. Thus, § 1367(a)'s threshold requirement is satisfied in cases, such as these, where some but not all of the plaintiffs in a diversity action allege a sufficient amount in controversy. Section 1367 by its plain text overruled Clark and Zahn and authorized supplemental jurisdiction over all claims by diverse parties arising out of the same case or controversy, subject only to enumerated exceptions not applicable here. Pp. 566-567.

(f) Because § 1367 is not ambiguous, this Court need not examine other interpretative tools, including legislative history. Even were it appropriate to do so, the Court would not give the legislative history significant weight. Pp. 567-571.

(g) The Class Action Fairness Act has no impact on the analysis of these cases. Pp. 571-572.

No. 04-70, 333 F. 3d 1248, affirmed; and No. 04-79, 370 F. 3d 124, reversed and remanded.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined, post, p. 572. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 577.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner in No. 04-70. With him on the briefs was Virginia A. Seitz. Donald B. Ayer argued the cause for petitioners in No. 04-79. With him on the briefs were Michael S. Fried Christian G. Vergonis, Freddie Perez-Gonzalez, and Robert H. Klonoff.

Eugene E. Stearns argued the cause for respondents in No. 04-70. With him on the briefs were Mark P. Dikeman, Mona E. Markus, Matthew W. Buttrick, and David C. Pollack. Robert A. Long, Jr., argued the cause for respondent in No. 04-79. With him on the brief were Jeremy D. Kernodle, Scott T. Rickman, and David J. Herman.

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

These consolidated cases present the question whether a federal court in a diversity action may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs whose claims do not satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, provided the claims are part of the same case or controversy as the claims of plaintiffs who do allege a sufficient amount in controversy. Our decision turns on the correct interpretation of 28 U. S. C. § 1367. The question has divided the Courts of Appeals, and we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 543 U. S. 924 (2004).

We hold that, where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, § 1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount specified in the statute setting forth the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in No. 04-70, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in No. 04-79.

I

In 1991, about 10,000 Exxon dealers filed a class-action suit against the Exxon Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The dealers alleged an intentional and systematic scheme by Exxon under which they were overcharged for fuel purchased from Exxon. The plaintiffs invoked the District Court's § 1332(a) diversity jurisdiction. After a unanimous jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3740 cases
  • Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Gloucester Cnty., Civil Action No. 3:18cv745
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 29 Mayo 2020
    ... ... Superintendent for Instructional Services on the Gloucester County School Board, in which ... Corp ... v ... Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see ... of the plaintiff'" (quoting Kolon Indus ., Inc ., 637 F.3d at 440)). This principle applies only ... 2009) (citing Exxon Mobile Corp ... v ... Allapattah Servs ., Inc ., ... ...
  • N-N v. Mayorkas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 18 Mayo 2021
    ... ... Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), and others, challenging agency delays ... Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc. , 711 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2013). However, ... (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, ... of legislative history."); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc. , 545 ... ...
  • Cnty. of Ocean v. Grewal, Civil Action No. 19-18083 (FLW)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 29 Julio 2020
    ... ... above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, ... See Reach Academy for Boys & Girls, Inc. v. Delaware Dep't of Educ. , 46 F. Supp. 3d ... of otherwise ambiguous terms." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs. , 545 U.S. 546, ... ...
  • Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 29 Diciembre 2017
    ... ... for Summ. J. (ECF No. 138); and Portland Pilots, Inc., the Maine Energy Marketers Association, and the ... offers be subject to execution of Transportation Services Agreements with the committed crude oil shippers in advance ... And Imperial Oil is a subsidiary of Exxon; correct? A. Correct. Q. So Imperial is Exxon's Canadian ... Defs.' Opp'n at 20 (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Medical Monitoring – 50-State Survey
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 12 Junio 2023
    ...such a right or remedy”) (applying Nebraska law), abrogated on non-relevant grounds, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 551-52 (2005); accord Avila v. CNH Am., LLC, 2012 WL 13187721, at *5 (D. Neb. Aug. 30, 2012) (“Nebraska tort law does not permit the cost of fut......
  • Removal Under The Class Action Fairness Act: Proving Jurisdictional Amount-In-Controversy In Light Of Standard Fire Insurance V. Knowles
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 12 Julio 2013
    ...291, 300-01 (1973). 32 Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 340 (1969). 33 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 34 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005). 35 Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 457 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006). 36 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) & (5). 37 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d......
  • Can a Lien Enforcement Action Be Properly Removed to Federal Court in Alabama?
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 15 Marzo 2023
    ...and defendant are domiciled in the same state and the dispute is more than $75,000(see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005)) . The homebuilder/lien claimant sought to remand the action back to state court, arguing that the Northern District of Alabama lacke......
37 books & journal articles
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • 18 Agosto 2014
    ...have jurisdiction over a case only if federal law specifically grants them jurisdiction. [ Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. , 545 US 546, 125 S Ct 2611, 2616-17 (2005).] On the other hand, state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. They have subject-matter jurisdiction u......
  • The Pesky Persistence of Class Action Tolling in Mass Tort Multidistrict Litigation
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-2, January 2014
    • 1 Enero 2014
    ...be least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549 (2005). 7. 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See generally Eldon E. Fallon, Jeremy T. Grabill & Robert Pitard Wynne, Bellwether Trials in Multidistric......
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Civil Practice Before Trial
    • 2 Mayo 2018
    ...have jurisdiction over a case only if federal law specifically grants them jurisdiction. [ Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. , 545 US 546, 125 S Ct 2611, 2616-17 (2005).] On the other hand, state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. They have subject-matter jurisdiction u......
  • Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • 10 Agosto 2016
    ...They have jurisdiction over a case only if federal law specifically grants them jurisdiction. [ Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Services, 545 US 546, 125 S Ct 264, 162 L Ed2d 502 (2005).] State courts, on the other hand, are courts of general jurisdiction. They have subject-matter jurisdicti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT