Article:
John H. Garvey, The Limits of Ancillary Jurisdiction, 57 Texas L. Rev. 697 (1979).
 

Abstract:
In the case of Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, the Supreme Court held that the application of the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction was impermissible under Section 1332 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code when applied to a non-diverse third party defendant. This article argues that none of the policy reasons advanced for limiting ancillary jurisdiction in Owen Equipment is consistent with the doctrine’s justifications of fairness, convenience, and economy. Specifically, the author attacks the proffered policies of limiting the federal caseload, respecting the states’ interests in adjudicating questions of state law, and preventing the plaintiff from too easily overcoming the requirement of complete diversity. If there is no legitimate judicial policy for limiting ancillary jurisdiction where applied to non-diverse third party defendants, the Court must have found that Congress intended it to be so limited in Section 1332. However, the author argues that the so-called “reenactment thesis” (i.e., that Congress repeatedly reenacted the statute in recognition of judicial insistence on complete diversity) does not support such an interpretation of Section 1332. Finally, the policy of the statute cannot call for a strict interpretation where such an interpretation violates fairness, convenience, and economy.