Zahn v. International Paper Co.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Thirteen lower federal courts held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 superseded Zahn's requirement that every plaintiff in a diversity action independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy threshold. The Supreme Court then held in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. that the statute overruled Zahn and authorized supplemental jurisdiction over related below-threshold claims.
866 later cases cite Zahn v. International Paper Co.; 121 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Zahn v. International Paper Co.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled
-
The Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 overruled Zahn and authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over diverse plaintiffs' related claims below the amount-in-controversy minimum when at least one named plaintiff satisfies that requirement and no other jurisdictional defect exists.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We hold that § 1367 by its plain text overruled Clark and Zahn and authorized supplemental jurisdiction over all claims by diverse parties arising out of the same Article III case or controversy, subject only to enumerated exceptions not applicable in the cases now before us.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Superseded by statute
-
Section 1367 displaced Zahn where subsection (a)'s same-case-or-controversy requirement is satisfied and subsection (b)'s exceptions do not apply.
Garza v. National American Insurance · M.D. La. · filed
These pre-§ 1367 cases include Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 94 S.Ct. 505, 38 L.Ed.2d 511 (1973). However, this court finds that the Congress said what it meant and that the Congress meant what it said — the language of § 1367 unavoidably overrules these pre-§ 1367 cases in those instances where the requirements of § 1367(a) are fulfilled and the exceptions of § 1367(b) are inapplicable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 displaced Zahn's independent amount-in-controversy requirement for related claims in a non-class diversity action when one plaintiff's claim independently satisfied § 1332.
Patterson Enterprises, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. · D. Kan. · filed
This court agrees with the Garza court that the plain meaning of the language of the statute has the effect of overruling Zahn in situations such as the one present here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 displaced Zahn and permits supplemental jurisdiction over unnamed diversity-class members whose claims do not independently meet the amount in controversy when the class representatives' claims do.
In re Abbott Laboratories · Fifth Circuit · filed
This class action brought under the antitrust laws of the State of Louisiana requires that we decide whether the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 overrules Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 94 S.Ct. 505, 38 L.Ed.2d 511 (1973). We hold today that it does.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 superseded Zahn's requirement that every diversity class member independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy threshold.
Deep v. Manufacturers Life Insurance · D.N.J. · filed
For essentially the same reasons set forth in Abbott and Stromberg, the Court holds that Section 1367 overruled Zahn.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 superseded Zahn's amount-in-controversy rule when at least one putative class representative satisfies the jurisdictional requirements.
Howard v. Globe Life Insurance · N.D. Fla. · filed
I conclude that the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have correctly construed the effect of Section 1367 on Zahn, in Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc., 77 F.3d 928 (7th Cir.1996), and In re Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524 (5th Cir.1995). I am also of the opinion that a number of district court decisions to the contrary have misconstrued the effect of Section 1367. As the law now stands, it is my determination that all putative class members may sue together, as a class in federal court, as long as at least one class representative meets the jurisdictional requirements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 displaced Zahn's requirement that every class member independently satisfy the amount in controversy.
In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation · D.N.J. · filed
But, plaintiffs no longer have to comply with the Zahn rule because Zahn was effectively overruled by 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 superseded Zahn's each-class-member amount-in-controversy requirement.
Leszczynski v. Allianz Insurance · S.D. Fla. · filed
For essentially the same reasons set forth in Abbott and Stromberg, the Court holds that section 1367 overruled Zahn.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 abrogated Zahn to the extent Zahn required every diversity-class member independently to satisfy the amount in controversy.
Chiartas v. Bavarian Motor Works, AG · S.D.W. Va. · filed
This Court agrees, and today holds § 1367 abrogates Zahn to the extent the latter is inconsistent with the statute.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 legislatively displaced Zahn and authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over diversity-class members whose claims do not meet the amount in controversy when one named plaintiff's claim exceeds the threshold.
Poore v. American-Amicable Life Insurance Co. of Texas · S.D. Ga. · filed
This Court concludes that the better reasoned approach is that embraced by the Fifth and Seventh Circuits and agrees that § 1367 legislatively overruled Zahn.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 displaced Zahn's requirement that every unnamed diversity class member independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Gibson v. Chrysler Corp. · Ninth Circuit · filed
For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Fifth and Seventh Circuits in Abbott Laboratories and Stromberg Metal Works, and hold that Zahn is overruled by § 1367.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 displaced Zahn's requirement that each diversity class member independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Rosmer v. Pfizer Inc. · Fourth Circuit · filed
Our view, respectfully, is that § 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction in diversity class actions, so long as one named plaintiff has a claim giving a federal court original jurisdiction.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 displaced Zahn and permits supplemental jurisdiction over class members below the amount-in-controversy threshold when at least one named plaintiff satisfies § 1332.
Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp. · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Upon our own review, we agree with our sister circuits that have held that the language of § 1367 clearly and unambiguously overrules Zahn and allows a district court entertaining a diversity class action to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over class members whose claims do not meet the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy requirement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Section 1367 displaced Zahn's requirement that every diversity class member independently meet the amount-in-controversy threshold.
Olden v. LaFarge Corp. · Sixth Circuit · filed
Today, we join with the majority of circuits which have considered the question and hold that Zahn has been overruled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Zahn v. International Paper Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace