Connection lost
Server error
EXXON MOBIL CORP. v. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over claims of additional plaintiffs in diversity cases who do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, provided at least one plaintiff’s claim does.
Legal Significance: This case significantly expanded supplemental jurisdiction in diversity actions by holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 overrules Zahn and Clark, thus not requiring every plaintiff to independently meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
EXXON MOBIL CORP. v. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
These consolidated cases addressed 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 their claims are part of the same case or controversy as the claims of plaintiffs who do allege a sufficient amount. In one case (Allapattah), approximately 10,000 Exxon dealers filed a class action suit against Exxon, alleging overcharges. The district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over class members who did not individually meet the amount-in-controversy, a decision upheld by the Eleventh Circuit. In the other case (involving Star-Kist, referred to as Ortega in the dissent), a girl’s claim met the jurisdictional amount, but her family members’ related claims for emotional distress and medical expenses did not. The First Circuit held that supplemental jurisdiction was improper for the family members’ claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this circuit split regarding the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which governs supplemental jurisdiction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 authorize a federal district court in a diversity action to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of additional plaintiffs who do not independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, if their claims are part of the same Article III case or controversy as the claims of at least one plaintiff who does satisfy the requirement?
Yes. The Court held that where other elements of jurisdiction are present Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 authorize a federal district court in a diversity action to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of additional plaintiffs who do not independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, if their claims are part of the same Article III case or controversy as the claims of at least one plaintiff who does satisfy the requirement?
Conclusion
This decision significantly altered federal diversity jurisdiction by confirming that 28 U.S.C. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
Legal Rule
Where a federal court has original diversity jurisdiction over at least one Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the statutory text of 28 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: In a diversity case, if one plaintiff satisfies the amount-in-controversy