The Supreme Court has twice espoused the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction whereby a federal court may adjudicate a claim arising under state law which does not meet the ordinary federal jurisdictional requirements when that state claim is properly joined with a federal claim and both claims are based on a common core of facts. Those two cases involved clearly federal claims of copyright infringement and secondary boycott to which were appended state claims of unfair competition and interference with contract rights respectively. In both cases, the joined claims were asserted by a single plaintiff against a single defendant between whom there was no diversity of citizenship. Perhaps because of the parallelism of these two Supreme Court decision, it has long been assumed that pendent jurisdiction is available only in similar cases. In recent years, however, some district courts of appeals have expanded markedly the application of pendent jurisdiction. They have permitted the appending of claims by and against additional parties not involved in the federal claim, and they have extended pendent jurisdiction to diversity cases. It is the object of this Article to examine the principle impediments which lie int he path of this latter extension of the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
Darrell D. Bratton,
Pendent Jurisdiction in Diversity Cases--Some Doubts,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol11/iss2/3