28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims arising from the same course of treatment as federal civil rights claims.

Prall v. Holm · filed 2022-08-04(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when they are “so related” to the federal claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... Because these claims arise from the same course of treatment as do Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against different defendants when those claims arise from the same facts and case or controversy as a remaining federal claim.

WOOD v. DONEGAL TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2022-08-04(a)

Here, supplemental jurisdiction applies since the claims against Donegal, Croft, and Shingle arise from the same set of facts and, therefore, the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a PAGA claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with class claims under CAFA.

Harvey v. Morgan Stanley LLC · filed 2022-08-15(a)

The allegations in the operative complaint establish that the PAGA claim and the class claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact—here, Morgan Stanley’s alleged violations of the Labor Code through its practice of, e.g., requiring employees to incur business expenses without reimbursement.

Section 1367(a) requires foreign patent infringement claims to form part of the same Article III case or controversy as claims within original jurisdiction; a general assertion that the patents protect the same technology is insufficient.

Seeley International PTY LTD v. Maisotsenko · filed 2022-09-01(a)

To the extent that the Court may have supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a), the Court must find that the “claims of foreign patent infringement ‘form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.’” Voda, 476 F.3d at 894. Here, Plaintiff merely provides a generalized citation to the Amended Complaint [#36] to say that “the Foreign Patents protect the same or a portion of the technology, methodology, or invention also protected by Patents registered in the United States.” Response [#60] at 6. This vague assertion is not enough to meet the analytical requirements expressed by Voda.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Coyne v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2022-09-21(a)

I have supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The plaintiffs’ FLSA and state law claims form part of the same case or controversy because they involve the nature of the plaintiffs’ pre- and post-shift activities and whether those activities are compensable time.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

FEUSS v. ENICA ENGINEERING, PLLC · filed 2022-09-22(a)

I exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nady’s state-law claims because they arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against nondiverse third-party defendants when those claims arise from the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Latitude Service Company v. Reese · filed 2022-09-27(a)

The interrelated nature of these issues, all of which, to at least some extent, are based on adjudicating the relationship between Mr. Reese, Latitude, and the other Latitude- affiliated entities, leads the Court to find that the issues arise from a common nucleus of operative fact and support exercising supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Hacker v. Truist Bank · filed 2022-09-30(a)

Moreover, Hacker’s state-law claims for violations of the Texas Finance Code and the Texas Fair Debt Collection Protection Act appear to be so related to his RESPA claim that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, including claims arising from the same alleged fraudulent scheme.

Salas v. Statebridge Company, LLC · filed 2022-09-30(a)

Here, Salas’s allegations about the overall scheme of which she was a victim make clear there is no meaningful way to parse her state-law claims from her federal one. ... The Court therefore concludes its exercise of jurisdiction over the entire case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a) is appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a viable federal claim.

Stover v. The College of William and Mary in Virginia · filed 2022-10-18(a)

The state law claims alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint arise from the same set of facts that serve as the basis for the remaining federal law claim. Since the Court finds that Plaintiff asserts a viable federal claim, as discussed supra, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction to consider the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form the same Article III case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

TCR, LLC v. Teton County · filed 2022-10-25(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Tallman v. Jeanpierre · filed 2022-10-31(a)

Because the facts underling the plaintiff’s claims of medical malpractice and negligence are the same as those underlying his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) covers state-law claims arising from the same collision as a claim within original jurisdiction because they form part of the same case or controversy.

The Estate of Ann Eva Wray v. Kennedy Brothers Logistics, Inc. · filed 2022-10-31(a)

Federal courts can exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Here, plaintiffs’ claims all arise out of the same vehicular collision, and liability of each defendant hinges in the first instance upon the determination of liability as to defendants Lee and Beddingfield.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same collision as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Estate of Madison Rose Mergl v. Lee · filed 2022-10-31(a)

Federal courts can exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Here, plaintiff’s claims all arise out of the same vehicular collision, and liability of each defendant hinges in the first instance upon the determination of liability as to defendants Lee and Beddingfield.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims arising from the same dispute as a federal claim, even when the complaint advances many legal theories.

LEON v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC. · filed 2022-11-03(a)

The state- law theories come along and are within the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367. Despite the multiplicity of legal theories, the whole case concerns the rocky breakup between Leon and IU in 2020 and early 2021. This is not an amalgam of unrelated cases fused together for pleading purposes; it is one case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original federal jurisdiction.

Swearingen v. Linn County, KS · filed 2022-11-16(a)

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s federal claims, and her state law claims form part of the same case or controversy arising under a common nucleus of operative facts, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The court elects to do so here.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Tallman v. Gugler · filed 2022-11-17(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim of medical malpractice are the same as those underlying his Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law medical malpractice claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim coextensive with federal claims because they form the same case or controversy under Article III.

Madden v. RITTAL North America LLC · filed 2022-11-18(a)

Because FEPA applies to Rittal, the Court can properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Madden’s FEPA claims as they are coextensive with his Federal law claims, and thus constitute the same case or controversy under Article III.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction when claims share a central factual issue, even if that issue matters to each claim in different ways.

SDJ Investments v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · filed 2022-11-22(a)

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Intervenor Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides jurisdiction over “claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... The ownership of the Contracts is central to both the SEC Action and the Intervenor Action. To be sure, CCI’s ownership of the Contracts is relevant to the two actions in different ways. But in both actions, whether and to what extent CCI owns an interest in the Contracts is the central issue.

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as a claim within their original jurisdiction.

Carter v. Sturgeon · filed 2022-11-28(a)

Since the facts giving rise to the IIED claim against Sturgeon arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact as those giving rise to the claim against LHA for the denial of housing benefits, this court does have supplemental jurisdiction over the IIED claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a joined plaintiff’s claim that lacks an independent jurisdictional basis if it forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Trudel v. Biotech · filed 2022-12-07(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction ... over claims for which the Court would otherwise lack jurisdiction, including claims brought by parties joined as plaintiffs, but only if they form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same case or controversy as federal claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Wright v. Airway Heights Corrections Center MSU · filed 2022-12-08(a)

The state law claims amount arise out of the same “case or controversy” and therefore the Court retains jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) allows a federal court to hear related state law claims only when a federal claim anchors them.

Larrea v. The State of Idaho · filed 2022-12-13(a)

In addition, the Court cannot hear state law claims in federal court without one or more related federal causes of action to anchor the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants even when their federal claims have been dismissed, if the state claims are sufficiently connected to surviving federal claims against other defendants.

DOUGLAS v. LALUMIERE · filed 2022-12-21(a)

Plaintiff Fowler’s state law claims, therefore, are sufficiently connected to the federal claims that he and other plaintiffs have asserted against some of the defendants to provide the Court supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even though the alleged unlawful eviction and conversion might be viewed as distinct events.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that is so related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction that both form part of the same case or controversy.

Roegiers v. United States · filed 2023-09-22(a)

The facts surrounding Plaintiff’s complaint against the government, and her complaint against Defendants, share significant overlap and are “so related” as to “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Lanciani v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-22(a)

Thus, the state-law claims form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims, over which the Court has original jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction exists over them pursuant to Section 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim arising from the same facts as a federal constitutional claim.

McWhorter v. Martin · filed 2023-10-06(a)

In a case containing federal and state law claims, a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that “are so related to [the federal law claims] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so related to federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Studio 010 Inc v. Digital Cashflow LLC · filed 2023-10-13(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because those claims are “so related” to the patent and trademark claims as to “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) covers claims arising from the same vehicle accident because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Nelson v. Wright Coaches, LLC · filed 2023-10-17(a)

Their claims unquestionably form the same case or controversy as required by § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same alleged conduct as federal claims because they form part of the same case or controversy.

ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION v. ZPS COMMERCE SIA · filed 2023-10-26(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the federal and state law claims all rely on the same alleged conduct, and thus are part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to insurance coverage crossclaims arising from personal injury actions when the original claims concern coverage for property damage and delay damages, even if both stem from the same accident.

Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company · filed 2023-11-01(a)

While it is true that, in the final analysis, all of the claims relate to who is going to pay for the damage caused by this terrible accident, that does not mean that the claims asserted by Gotham and ZDG against the Excess Insurers arising out of the Personal Injury Actions are part and parcel of a case in which the controversy involves only coverage for property damage and delay damages.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Consolidated Industries, LLC v. Maupin · filed 2023-11-06(a)

As for Weather King’s claims under Tennessee law, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction in any civil action in which a court has original jurisdiction but only “over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This means the supplemental claims must “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1753 n.1 (2019) (Alito, J., dissenting) (quoting Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). The Court finds that Weather King’s claims for the violation of the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act and various torts under Tennessee common law meet this standard. The claims are based on Defendants’ misappropriation of Weather King’s trade secrets and injuries traceable to Defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct once they left their employment with Weather King. Therefore, the Court can properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are related to federal claims and form part of the same controversy.

SALINS v. ADILETTA · filed 2023-11-08(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs state law claims because they are related to and form part of the same controversy as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) supports supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims rooted in the same factual allegations as claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Omni Elevator Corp. v. Int'l Union of Elevator Constructors · filed 2023-11-13(a)

Because the entirety of Appellants’ single-count complaint is rooted in the same factual allegations of misconduct against the Union Appellees, an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ remaining claims was likewise warranted.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state trespass claim arising from the same facts as a federal preemption claim.

Ottawa Northern Railroad, LLC v. Baldwin City, Kansas, City of · filed 2023-11-16(a)

In this case, Ottawa Northern’s trespass claim arises out of the same set of facts surrounding its declaratory claim based on federal preemption. Its allegations that defendants entered its property without authorization and caused damage relate directly to the validity of the Trail Easement Agreement and Construction Agreement, the agreements which defendants argue authorize their entry and construction work. Although Section 1367(b) lists some exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction, those exceptions do not apply here. The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s trespass claim, and overrules defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Proano v. Melrose Home Improvement Corp. · filed 2023-11-17(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction extends to state law claims that so relate to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a federal constitutional claim.

Bohn v. Franklin County Correctional Healthcare · filed 2023-11-20(a)

The Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because the allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as the constitutional claim at issue in Count 1.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal wage claims, including NYLL minimum wage and overtime claims that overlap with FLSA claims for the same violations.

Zabrodin v. Silk 222, Inc. · filed 2023-11-20(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction extends to state law claims that so relate to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Here, supplemental jurisdiction clearly extends to Plaintiffs’ third and fourth claims, which seek to recover for unpaid minimum wages and overtime premiums under the NYLL, because they virtually overlap with Plaintiffs’ first two claims, which seek to recover for the same violations under the FLSA.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a separate plaintiff’s state-law claim when it shares a sufficient factual connection with a federal claim; the claims need not overlap perfectly.

Piquion v. Amerifreight Systems LLC · filed 2023-11-22(a)

KC&R’s ICFA claim therefore arises from a critical subset of the TILA allegations. See McCoy, 760 F.3d at 683. The claims do not overlap perfectly, but that is not the test. There is an adequate “loose factual connection.” Prolite, 891 F.3d at 258.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

STATE OF TEXAS v. US Department of Homeland Security · filed 2023-11-29(a)

The Court may maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if it is so related to the other claim(s) that it forms part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, it is clear the state law claims are so bound up with the APA claims as to be part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, the Court has the ability to, and does, exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits state-law claims that are so closely related to federal claims that they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Dodd v. Placer County Sheriff Office · filed 2023-11-29(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims concerning the same alleged trademark infringement as federal claims because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Gulliver's Tavern Incorporated v. Foxy Lady Inc · filed 2023-12-04(a)

In addition, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, as they concern the same trademark infringement allegations, and thus “form part of the same case or controversy” as Plaintiff’s federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to remaining federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Halicek v. Collins · filed 2023-12-20(a)

Because the Court determines that Plaintiff’s state law claims are so related to Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims that those state law claims form part of the same case or controversy, the Court shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth in the complaint.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims so related to a federal FLSA claim that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Xalamihua v. GGC Legacy Janitorial Services LLC · filed 2023-12-26(a)

The Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s AMWA and AWA claims because the state law claims “are so related to” the federal FLSA claim “that they form part of the same case or controversy” under Article III of the Constitution.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Romero v. Steel Roots LLC · filed 2024-01-04(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Arizona state law claims, Counts Three and Four, because they are “part of the same case or controversy” as Plaintiff’s federal law claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same facts as the federal claims.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARINER FINANCE, LLC · filed 2024-01-12(a)

Counts VII through XV, which arise from the same facts as the federal law claims, are properly before the Court pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

A single indirect reference to an agreement underlying federal claims does not make separate state court claims part of the same case or controversy for supplemental jurisdiction.

Rossi v. Purvis · filed 2024-01-29(a)

Further, the single indirect reference to the RSPA in that complaint does not render the state court claims part of the same “case or controversy” that gives rise to the federal claims at issue in this action, such that this Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state court claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Ferguson, Dorin v. McMartin, Donna · filed 2024-01-30(a)

Normally, this court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but because plaintiff’s negligence claims against defendants “form part of the same case or controversy” as his federal claims against defendants Craft, Betancourt, Rocha and Cook, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over breach of contract claims that arise from the same facts as federal copyright claims.

Dassault Systemes SolidWorks Corporation v. Blissera Corp. · filed 2024-02-05(a)

Courts may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction “over . . . claims that are so related to claims . . . within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Here, the breach of contract claims arise from the same facts as the Copyright Infringement and Circumvention of Technological Measure claims. Therefore, the Court may properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction when they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Dahoui v. Brown · filed 2024-02-08(a)

However, if Ms. Dahoui properly alleges a claim under federal law (such as an ADA or § 1983 claim), the court could potentially have subject-matter jurisdiction over her state-law claims under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Under that statute, if the court has original jurisdiction over a federal claim, the court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.”48 To show the claims arise from the same case or controversy, Ms. Dahoui would need to allege her state claims derive from “a common nucleus of operative fact” with her federal claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within its original jurisdiction, even when the related claim supplies no independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Rhode Island Truck Ctr v. Daimler Trucks North America · filed 2024-02-09(a)

This conclusion follows from the fact that 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in granting supplemental jurisdiction, is not keyed to whether the claim asserted to be encompassed by it suffices to make the action bringing the claim a "civil action."

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that is part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Miller v. St. Clair County Emergency Management Administration · filed 2024-02-20(a)

This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over this claim because it is part of the same case or controversy as the plaintiffs’ FLSA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a federal claim.

Caballero v. Lawrence Correctional Center · filed 2024-02-27(a)

In a case containing federal and state law claims, a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that “are so related to [the federal law claims] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law fraud claim arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction.

Abrams v. Standard Caribbean Shipping, Inc. · filed 2024-02-27(a)

For the same reasons as in Cargo Logistics, supplemental jurisdiction over Abrams’ fraud claim lies here. The alleged misrepresentation — that Abrams owed more than she had contracted to pay for shipment — arises from the same facts as Abrams’ breach of maritime contract claim.

Section 1367(a) permits a state-law medical negligence claim to proceed with a federal constitutional claim when both derive from the same facts.

Murphy v. Unknown Parties · filed 2024-03-04(a)

The medical negligence claim in Count 2 derives from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim and will be allowed to proceed at this stage.

Section 1367(a) is satisfied when the state and federal claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Zivkovic v. Laura Christy LLC · filed 2024-03-05(a)

It is undisputed that the NYLL and FLSA claims form part of the same case or controversy such that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is satisfied.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same incident as federal claims because they form part of the same case or controversy.

(PC) Hamilton v. Ables · filed 2024-03-05(a)

Plaintiff’s federal and state law claims all relate to the same incident. (See ECF No. 1 at 7-20.) Therefore, the court concludes they are part of the same case or controversy, and the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Hall-Johnson v. CITIBANK, N.A · filed 2024-03-11(a)

However, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because they arise from the same case or controversy as her federal claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim based on the same allegations as a federal claim.

Mannery v. Moyle · filed 2024-03-12(a)

Because the plaintiff’s claim of negligence against Moyle and Camarena is based on the same allegations that underlie his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law negligence claim.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not form part of the same case or controversy because they arise from different operative facts.

Ennis-White v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2024-03-14(a)

And there is no supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because they do not “form part of the same case or controversy,” or arise from the same operative facts, as the claims against Nationwide.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over an independent third-party breach of contract claim that does not arise from the same case or controversy as the original claim.

Cary v. Patch Services LLC · filed 2024-03-13(a)

Here, First American’s breach of contract claim is independent from the alleged facts and harms Cary sets forth in her operative complaint, so the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over it in this context.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim arising from the same events as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Lewis v. French · filed 2024-03-19(a)

Lewis asserts supplementary state law claims that the actions of Defendants Allen and the CDCR were negligent. Liberally construed, Lewis’s allegations satisfy the statutory requirement. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction the aforementioned state law negligence claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Miser v. Freight Logistics, Inc. · filed 2024-03-25(a)

The court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s defamation claim because it arises from and forms part of the same case and controversy as her ADA claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that form part of the same case or controversy as surviving federal claims.

Sanders v. Union County Jail · filed 2024-03-27(a)

Because Plaintiff’s North Carolina negligence claims are so related to his surviving federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claims and will allow them to pass initial review at this time.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims analogous to surviving federal claims when they form part of the same case or controversy.

TORTORA v. BOROUGH OF BERGENFIELD · filed 2024-03-29(a)

As a consequence, it is appropriate for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, and count VIII will not be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as claims within the federal court’s original jurisdiction.

Thompson v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC · filed 2024-03-31(a)

Moreover, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the various state law claims, as they are undoubtedly part of the “same case or controversy.”

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so related to federal claims that they are part of the same case or controversy.

CreeLED, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A · filed 2024-04-04(a)

This Court also exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they are part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367 requires a supplemental claim and a claim within original jurisdiction to share a common nucleus of operative fact; claims based on medical treatment and an employment contract do not meet that requirement.

Valdez v. Scottsbluff Operations LLC · filed 2024-04-05(a)

The nuclei of fact for Valdez’s claim—negligent medical treatment—and Dr. Kader’s claim—his employment contract—are not “common” and therefore not “part of the same case or controversy.” Id.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Red Apple Media, Inc. v. Batchelor · filed 2024-04-08(a)

Here, the claims that were dismissed and those that were not plainly formed the same case or controversy, so the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim sufficiently related to federal claims because it arises from the same alleged conduct.

Bennett v. Newsom · filed 2024-04-09(a)

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is based upon the same alleged denial of mental health care as Plaintiff’s claims under federal law. Therefore, this claim is sufficiently related to Plaintiff’s federal claims that the Court has jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against a different defendant when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.

Sibling Rivalry Diverse Services, LLC v. City of Boise · filed 2024-04-10(a)

The Court disagrees that Sibling Rivalry’s claims against the United States and the City do not arise out of the same case or controversy. To the contrary, the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same case or controversy as federal claims.

DGU GROUP INC. v. THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A" · filed 2024-04-12(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over DGU’s remaining claims arising under common law or state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claims arise from the same case or controversy as DGU’s federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim based on the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Cobb v. McLean · filed 2024-04-15(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim of negligence are the same as those that underlie his Eighth Amendment claims, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that shares a core factual issue with a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Haggins, IV v. Deep Ellum Foundation · filed 2024-04-16(a)

Thus, as both Haggins’ federal and state law claims are so related as to form part of the same case or controversy, the Court has proper supplemental jurisdiction over Haggins’ state law claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same alleged facts as the federal claims, so that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Graham v. John Does 1-25 · filed 2024-04-16(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim because it arises out of the same alleged facts such that it forms “part of the same case or controversy” as Graham’s federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Glacio Inc v. Dongguan Sutuo Industrial Co Ltd · filed 2024-04-18(a)

Regardless, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as a state law claim forming part of the same case or controversy as the Section 1338 claims. The tortious-interference claim arises from the same occurrences (Defendant’s patent-enforcement complaint to Amazon) as the claims for declaratory relief.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within federal-question jurisdiction and forms part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Graves v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-04-24(a)

The court finds that, for the reasons set forth in plaintiff’s brief (Doc. 83 at 8-9), the RESPA claim and the fraud claim “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), and “are so related ... that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the fraud claim against Merchants Bonding Company.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims sufficiently related to a federal claim to form the same Article III case or controversy.

Datres v. Winfree · filed 2024-04-24(a)

Furthermore, the Court concludes that all other claims brought by Datres are so related to the claims encompassed in the federal question that they form the same case or controversy for Article III purposes.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to a federal claim so that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Beverley v. Jam Electric, LLC · filed 2024-04-29(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claims are related to Plaintiff’s FLSA claim such that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Roberts v. Green · filed 2024-05-22(a)

Because the facts underlining plaintiff’s claim of negligence are the same as those underlining his Eighth Amendment claim, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a state-law claim to form part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim; potential relevance of requested records to federal claims does not suffice when the claims require distinct determinations.

MADISON v. COLQUITT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2024-06-20(a)

The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff’s Georgia Open Records Act claim does not form part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s federal claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same alleged phone calls and text messages as a federal claim.

Ewing v. Tip Top Capital, Inc · filed 2024-06-25(a)

And, as the Complaint’s causes of action all arise from the same alleged phone calls and text messages, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s CIPA claim by way of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising from the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Williamson v. Lorain County · filed 2024-06-26(a)

Because Count Four arises from the same ...controversies as Williamson’s federal constitutional claim, the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Skaggs v. Howell · filed 2024-07-02(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over all claims against Mrs. Howell and the claims against Mr. Howell related to the Defendants’ failure to pay Mr. Skaggs for his work. Those claims form part of the same case or controversy as the claims for which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and “are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Cooper v. Fire & Ice Trucking, Corp. · filed 2024-07-09(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction extends to state law claims that so relate to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim, but not over factually distinct claims.

Carrick v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. · filed 2024-07-10(a)

Because the factual allegations underlying the discrimination, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are not part of the same case or controversy as those underlying the wage-related claims, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that share a common nucleus with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Texas Green Star LLC v. Texas Green Star Holdings LLC · filed 2024-07-30(a)

Therefore, if the Court (1) has original jurisdiction and (2) the other claims derive from a common nucleus, supplemental jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1367(a) requires facts showing that state-law claims and claims within the court’s original jurisdiction form part of the same case or controversy.

Shaw v. Dermatology Realm · filed 2024-08-05(a)

Because the Amended Complaint does not allege facts supporting those causes of action, there is no basis for the Court to conclude that the state-law claims are “so related” to the federal claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” § 1367(a). Without facts to establish that nexus, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a junior lienholder’s foreclosure claim when it is part of the same controversy as the original foreclosure claim.

RH Fund 28, LLC v. O'Niell · filed 2024-08-08(a)

Therefore, Munro’s claim is inextricably related to the same controversy raised in RH Fund 28’s claims and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same set of facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Allen-Walker v. Shelby County Government · filed 2024-08-13(a)

Plaintiff’s federal and state claims arise from the same set of facts, namely, the alleged gender-based discrimination and retaliation she faced as the CSDO for the Shelby County EOC. Id. Title VII and the THRA claims implicate the same legal standards, and all facts that are relevant to one set of claims will be relevant to the other. Newman v. Fed. Express Corp., 266 F.3d 401, 406 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s THRA claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same alleged conduct as federal claims and form part of the same case or controversy.

Ontel Products Corporation v. ZPS Commerce SIA · filed 2024-08-22(a)

Judge McNulty previously found that this Court had subject matter jurisdiction over these claims through federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. ECF No. 31 at 4 (“Ontel brings claims under federal trademark, copyright, unfair competition, and cyberpiracy laws, which is sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the federal and state law claims all rely on the same alleged conduct, and thus are part of the same case or controversy.”). For the same reasons, the District of Minnesota also has subject matter jurisdiction through federal question and supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

National Council of The United States, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Inc. v. The Del Norte Council of the Society of S · filed 2024-08-23(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is proper because those claims arise out of the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Patterson v. Whitman · filed 2024-08-23(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim of negligence are the same as those underlying his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claim.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims.

Armstrong v. City of Long Beach, Mississippi · filed 2024-08-27(a)

Since Plaintiffs allege that the lighting, fencing, and dumpster violations were part of the alleged overarching conspiracy to deprive them of their civil rights, Plaintiffs’ enforcement and nuisance claims are part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs’ federal claims for violation of their civil rights.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Northwestern Ohio Administrators, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/third-Party · filed 2001-11-06(a)

Neither subsection (b) nor (c) is applicable here. Therefore, unless the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for some reason other than the Textron rule, which is inapposite here, these claims are properly within the supplemental jurisdiction of the court, arising as they do out of exactly the same facts that gave rise to NOA’s complaint against W & F.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Carradine v. Racine Police Officer John Doe 1 · filed 2024-09-04(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim since it is “so related” to the federal claims on which Plaintiff is permitted to proceed “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state and federal wage claims arising from the same underpayment.

Modise v. CareOne Health Services, LLC · filed 2024-09-12(a)

Because the same under-compensation gave rise to Plaintiffs’ FLSA and CMWA claims, the Court had no trouble concluding that the two wage-related claims were “so related” that they formed “part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that arise from the same operative facts as a federal claim.

Yates v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for GSR Loan Trust 2006-3F · filed 2024-09-12(a)

Since Plaintiffs’ remaining claims and the FDCPA claim arise from the same operative facts – namely, Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, their subsequent default, and Defendants’ foreclosure actions – the remaining claims form part of the same case or controversy and the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same case or controversy as the federal claims, even when a state statute specifies state courts for filing that claim.

Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio · filed 2024-09-30(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the facts giving rise to this claim involve the “same case or controversy” as the federal claims also asserted in this case. Thus, R.C. § 149.43(C)(1)(b) does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) covers a state law breach of contract claim that arises from the same case or controversy as a federal ADA claim.

Cohan v. Carmel Management Group LLC · filed 2024-10-04(a)

Here, the Court finds that the pendant breach of contract claim arises from the same case or controversary as the ADA claims which forms the basis of the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as federal claims.

COSTAMAR TRAVEL CRUISE & TOURS, INC. v. PENA · filed 2024-10-04(a)

Because Plaintiff's New Jersey and common law claims arise from the same case or controversy as the federal trademark claims, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims as well.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim closely related to a federal claim when both form part of the same case or controversy.

Gunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-10-09(a)

Her defamation claim is closely related, such that the two claims “form part of the same case or controversy” in a manner that allows this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law defamation claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that is closely related to a federal claim and part of the same case or controversy.

Edward F. Groden, Executive Director of the New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. Epstein · filed 2024-10-17(a)

The Court also has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the unjust enrichment claim (Count II) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claim is closely related to and part of the same case or controversy as the ERISA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share operative facts with a federal claim and form part of the same case or controversy.

Farage v. Murphy · filed 2024-10-17(a)

Farage also asks to proceed on a state law medical malpractice/medical negligence claim, and the Court will take supplemental jurisdiction over those claims at this time because they involve the same operative facts such that they form part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that shares a common nucleus of facts with a federal claim.

Taylor-Watson v. Smith · filed 2024-11-13(a)

Plaintiff’s MWPCL claim arises from the same common nucleus of facts, such that the two claims “form part of the same case or controversy” in a manner that allows this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising from the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Rimmer v. Hancock County, Mississippi · filed 2024-11-20(a)

This claim arises out of the same controversy as the § 1983 claim because Rimmer alleges that Koennen induced Judge Favre to fire Rimmer, so this Court has supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as claims within its federal question jurisdiction.

Multiscan Technologies USA LLC · filed 2024-11-20(a)

Consequently, so long as the rest of the claims are a part of the same “case or controversy” as the federal question claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over them, and it did so when the case was filed.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that arises from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Smiley v. Phillip · filed 2024-12-03(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim of medical malpractice are the same as those underlying his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim against Wheatley, Ludwig and Pelky.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Dertz v. Stiefvater · filed 2024-12-03(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence are the same as those underlying his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims against Schoenecker and Hennings.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims with no factual overlap with the federal claims that provide original jurisdiction.

Eberhardt v. Walsh · filed 2024-12-05(a)

First, the district court plainly lacked supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, because they had no factual overlap with the federal claims that provided jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (providing supplemental jurisdiction for “claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy”).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is part of the same controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Vega v. Friends of Dolphins, LLC · filed 2024-12-05(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count One under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because Plaintiff’s claim for violations of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act (“FWCA”) is related to, and is part of the same controversy as, the FLSA claim over which the Court that has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an arbitration-award dispute that forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Unite Here v. Wilton Rancheria · filed 2024-12-09(a)

The parties’ disagreement about the arbitration award also is part of the same “case or controversy” as the Union’s original claim, i.e., whether the Tribe must move forward with the card check as the Union demands or whether the Union must follow the procedure laid out in the Tribe’s labor ordinance.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Maker's Mark Distillery, PBC v. Spalding Group, Inc. · filed 2024-12-10(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction exists over the remaining state law claims, as they arise from the same case and controversy.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

McSean v. Chamberlain · filed 2024-12-16(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same case or controversy as a federal claim. ... Here, Plaintiff’s state law claims arise from the same factual allegations as her Fourth Amendment claim. Judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s battery and assault claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

FELDER v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE · filed 2024-12-16(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim because it is “so related” to the federal law claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that it “form[s] part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that concern the same incident and parties as the federal claims.

Calisi v. Volusia County Department of Corrections · filed 2024-12-20(a)

The court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state and federal claims implicate the same parties and concern the same use-of-force incident and subsequent medical treatment.

Section 1367(a) allows a court with original jurisdiction over some claims to hear additional claims that are part of the same case or controversy.

Ennis-White v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2024-12-30(a)

Once a court has original jurisdiction over some claims in the action, it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that are part of the same case or controversy. ... In this case, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Ennis-Whites’ non-completely preempted claims to further judicial economy and because they also arise from Rusty’s employment relationship with Nationwide.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that arises from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Harmon v. Carr · filed 2024-12-30(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim of medical malpractice are the same as those underlying his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim sufficiently related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction to form part of the same case or controversy.

FFWCT, LLC v. USA Football, Inc. · filed 2025-01-03(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over USA Football’s state law conversion claims because they “are so related” to USA Football’s Lanham Act claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Romero v. Synergy Restoration LLC · filed 2025-01-06(a)

Romero’s state law claims under the AZMWA and the AZWA, form “part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 9.) 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Thus, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Romero’s state law claims.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Hallman v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC · filed 2025-01-15(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Hallman’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Hallman’s state law wage and hour and equitable claims are “part of the same case or controversy” as her FLSA claims.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within its original jurisdiction.

Locke Supply Company v. Oklahoma City City of · filed 2025-01-16(a)

Here, Locke’s state law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with its constitutional claims, so the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Keith v. Summers · filed 2025-01-21(a)

Keith’s negligence claim against Welbig stems from her conduct in cancelling his surgery appointments. Thus, they form part of the same case or controversy, and this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an issue arising from the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Northland Management & Construction, LLC v. City of Parkville · filed 2025-01-24(a)

To the extent it is necessary to decide whether Defendant incorrectly applied its ordinance to Plaintiff such that it violated Plaintiff’s federal rights, this Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over that issue because it arises from the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims closely related to federal claims arising from the same events.

Manyan v. District of Columbia · filed 2025-01-28(a)

The Manyans’ state-law claims are part of the same controversy because they are closely related to the shooting, which forms the basis for the federal claims under § 1983.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state wage claim arising from the same alleged unpaid wages as a federal FLSA claim.

Sandell v. DH Brewing Incorporated · filed 2025-02-05(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim pursuant to the AMWA as it pertains to the same case or controversy: Plaintiff’s alleged unpaid wages.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Soliz v. James G. Davis Construction Corporation · filed 2025-02-11(a)

Because CAK’s Virginia and breach of contract claims arise from the same facts and are based on the same case or controversy as CAK’s FLSA claim, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Lodos v. Empire Towing Corp. · filed 2025-02-21(a)

Furthermore, the Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the Colorado Wage Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Colorado Wage Act claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts as the FLSA claim because both claims involve defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages to Mr. Lodos.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that shares essential facts with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Jenkins v. Miller · filed 2025-02-28(a)

Here, Jenkins’ tort claim and her 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim involve the same essential facts, and therefore “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Smith v. Warren, City of · filed 2025-03-03(a)

The Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are so related to Smith’s Title VII and § 1981 claims that they “form part of the same case or controversy[.]”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same set of facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Suleymanov v. Winston Premier Logistics, LLC · filed 2025-03-03(a)

Here, Suleymanov’s CUTPA and breach of contract claims arise from the same set of facts—the employment relationship and lost wages—as the FLSA claim. Therefore, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Suleymanov’s state law claims against Winston Premier.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Allan v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee · filed 2025-03-03(a)

Those allegations address the same set of facts —— namely, Defendants’ alleged retaliation against Plaintiff for her failure to adequately support Defendant Day’s campaign for County Clerk —— as her federal claims. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state constitutional claims.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims unrelated to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

LLOYD v. MANBEL DEVCO I LP · filed 2025-03-04(a)

Accordingly, this Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the LCHA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (providing that “the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution”).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the additional claim shares a common nucleus of operative facts with the claim invoking federal jurisdiction.

Abbott v. Austal USA, LLC · filed 2025-03-06(a)

This Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Mertle’s claim for fees and expenses because his claim is not “so closely related to the jurisdiction-invoking claim” that they are part of the same “case” or “controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that arises from the same underlying facts as the federal claims.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Alderwood Surgical Center LLC · filed 2025-03-07(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Eli Lilly’s state law CPA claim because it arises from the same underlying facts as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same incident as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Portes v. City of Doral · filed 2025-03-11(a)

Because the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim asserting a Fourth Amendment violation, supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, as all claims stem from the same February 14, 2023 incident.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims with sufficient factual overlap with a federal claim.

Courville v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections · filed 2025-03-12(a)

Here, the Court finds sufficient factual overlap exists between the federal and state-law claims to support supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same underlying facts as federal claims.

Rowland v. King County · filed 2025-03-14(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims because they arise from the same underlying facts as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) supports supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Torres v. Quiros · filed 2025-03-18(a)

The state law claims against the Clerk’s Office defendants are sufficiently related to the claims against defendant Doe that they form part of the same case or controversy, as required to support an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share the same underlying facts and employment relationship as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Thompson v. Pioneer Bank & Trust · filed 2025-03-21(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Thompson’s remaining claims in Counts 2 and 3 so long as the ERISA claim remains.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same facts as the federal claims.

Lipscomb v. Wills · filed 2025-03-24(a)

Plaintiff’s Illinois state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arises from the same facts that give rise to his federal constitutional claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Brooks v. Diserens · filed 2025-03-25(a)

The Court finds that the claims against Cortez and Diserens are not so related to claims against ILAW (over which the Court has original jurisdiction) that they form part of the same case or controversy. Consequently, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Reller v. Winch · filed 2025-03-26(a)

Because these claims are part of the same case or controversy, this Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Reller’s state-law negligence claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction when two claims share only the same parties and an agreement.

Eminent Consulting, LLC v. RightSourcing, Inc. · filed 2025-04-08(a)

The only connection between these claims is they involve the same parties and concern an agreement, which falls short of establishing that they are part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367 gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

KANG v. POSCO AAPC LLC · filed 2025-04-09(a)

Because Kang has adequately alleged federal claims against POSCO that arise from the same case or controversy as his claims against ICN, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Kang's state law claims against ICN.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Sensoria, LLC v. Kaweske · filed 2025-04-17(a)

In addition, the remaining state law claims are closely related such that they form part of the same case and controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Consequently, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law matters.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Laughing Rabbit Inc v. Laser Bonding Tech Inc · filed 2025-04-22(a)

Additionally, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim for a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because this state claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims.

Yusuff v. District of Columbia · filed 2025-04-29(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction is proper here because the claims that Ms. Yusuff raises under the DCHRA and DCWPA arise under the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as her federal claims under the ADA and FMLA.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Smith v. National Grid USA · filed 2025-04-30(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in the Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because those claims are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

DGU GROUP INC. v. THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A · filed 2025-04-30(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over DGU’s remaining claims arising under common law or state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claims arise from the same case or controversy as DGU’s federal claims.