United States Second Circuit

28 U.S.C. section 1367 has displaced the earlier view that a permissive counterclaim requires independent jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction may therefore be available for defendant's permissive counterclaims. Remanded with directions to rule on the class certification motion and then, in light of that ruling, to exercise discretion per section 1367(c).

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/05/2004
• Published 02/05/2004

Judges

• JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge., Before:  NEWMAN, SOTOMAYOR, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Daniel H. Schlueter, Atlanta, Ga. (Thomas M. Byrne, Valerie S. Sanders, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Atlanta, Ga.;  John H. Beisner, Neil K. Gilman, Rachel A. Shapiro, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant., Darnley D. Stewart, New York, N.Y. (Daniel L. Berger, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, N.Y.;  Michael E. Terry, Terry & Gore, Nashville, Tenn.;  Gary Klein, Grant & Roddy, Boston, Mass.;  Kevin Greco, Sandak Friedman Hennessey & Greco, LLP, Stamford, Conn.;  Wyman O. Gilmore, Grove Hill, Ala.;  Clint W. Watkins, Brentwood, Tenn.;  Stuart Rossman, National Consumer Law Center, Boston, Mass., on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.