The court has jurisdiction over both claim but under different base.
Generally, every claim in federal court must
have a basis for federal subject jurisdiction. There are three main
flavors of federal subject matter jurisdiction -
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. federal question jurisdiction ,
and supplemental jurisdiction. Diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction is available when 1) there is complete diversity
of citizenship , meaning that each plaintiff
is a citizen of a different state from every defendant; and 2) the
amount in controversy exceeds 75000. A natural person's citizenship is the
state that is person's permanent home.
A corporation is a citizenship of every state in which it is incorporated and
the one state in which it has its principal
place of business. The amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff's
good faith allegation. In the instant case.
the facts state that the researcher and the analyst are citizens of State A.
and that the corporation was incorporated
and has its principal place of business in State B. As a result, complete
diversity exist. The researcher claims 100000.
presumable in good faith. Therefore. The researcher may claim diversity
jurisdiction to have his claim heard in federal
court. The analyst. on the other hand. claims only 50000 in damages; thus,
he may not invoke diversity jurisdiction to have
his claims in federal court. However, the analyst might invoke supplemental
jurisdiction to have his claim heard in federal
court. When the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over one claim.
It has discretion to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over related claims that derive from the same common nucleus
of fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily
be expected to try them in a single judicial proceeding. Here, the analyst's
claim is derived from the corporation's wrongful
termination of both plaintiffs based on an allegation that they conspired to
sell a trade secret to a competitor. As a result.
the analyst's claim springs from the same common nucleus of fact as the
researcher's claim. There are several restriction.
on the use of supplemental
jurisdiction when joined with a claim based solely on diversity. However,
claims by a plaintiff joined under the permissive
joinder rules are not listed among the types of claims that may not use
supplemental jurisdiction in cases based solely on
diversity. Finally, the analyst's presence does not destroy complete
diversity. Thus, the analyst may invoke supplemental
jurisdiction to have his claim heard in federal court.