28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(a) requires state law claims to be sufficiently related to federal claims to form part of the same case or controversy.

Moore v. Reddy · filed 2025-05-02(a)

Further, this Court finds that they are not sufficiently related to the arrest-based claims to be part of the same case or controversy. Therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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.

Johnson v. Ramada By Wyndham · filed 2025-05-06(a)

Because these claims are part of the same case or controversy, this Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

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

Nordic Naturals, Inc. v. Premium Sellers LLC · filed 2025-05-07(a)

Although the undersigned is not inclined to reach the merits of Nordic’s claims under state law, those claims fall within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction because they “are so related to the [federal] claims . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Manlove v. County of San Diego · filed 2025-05-08(a)

Plaintiff’s state law claims arise from the same traffic stop and alleged use of force. The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction to adjudicate the common law and Bane Act claims for the first time here since the Court did not reach those claims in Defendants’ initial motion to dismiss.

Section 1367(a) 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.

Peppin v. KQC LLC · filed 2025-05-20(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims as they pertain to the same case or controversy: Plaintiff’s alleged unpaid wages.

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

Vaughan v. Quicken Loans Inc · filed 2025-05-20(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at issue as they “form part of the same case or controversy” as the TILA claim.

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

Smith v. Whitesboro Police Department · filed 2025-05-22(a)

This common law claim is sufficiently related to the federal claims brought against Defendants Ruszkowski, Morrissey, Blovant, and Humphries such that they “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Robbs v. Decapua · filed 2025-05-29(a)

Here, at this stage, this test is satisfied. As stated above, Plaintiff has properly pleaded, for initial review purposes, claims arising under the federal constitution, and Plaintiff’s defamation claim is sufficiently related to those claims so as to be considered part of the same case or controversy under Article III.

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

Stache Products, LLC v. Green Brothers Wholesale Inc. · filed 2025-05-29(a)

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction) because the state law claim is “so related to” the federal claims that it “form[s] part of the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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.

IBRAHIM v. PAREKH · filed 2025-05-29(a)

At the tume Defendants removed the case to federal court, therefore, this Court had original and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs entire complaint.

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

Tapia v. Paragon Systems, Inc. · filed 2025-06-05(a)

The Court finds that the remaining labor violation claims derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact as Plaintiff’s unpaid overtime allegation. As such, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the entire PAGA action.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims that share no common issue of fact or law with the federal claim.

Grizzle v. Texas Tech Medical Branch · filed 2025-06-06(a)

And second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add state-law tort claims of malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because they do not share any common issue of fact or law with the federal claim that is proceeding in this case.

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

Einstein Bros Bagel Franchise Corporation v. J.F.C. Management Holdings LLC · filed 2025-06-09(a)

The court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ “common law trademark and service mark infringement,” “common law unfair competition,” and various breach of contract claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as the claims arise from the same controversy as Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

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

United States v. Rochester Regional Health · filed 2025-06-11(a)

Here, the state and federal actions arise from the same set of facts—particularly, that RRH retaliated against Relator because she tried to stop RRH from committing False Claims Act violations. See Dkt. 34 { 158. Thus, section 1367(a) is satisfied.

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

Bell v. Tjeerdsma · filed 2025-06-16(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as the civil action over which this court has original jurisdiction. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over Bell’s breach of contract claim.

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.

Webb v. Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute · filed 2025-06-25(a)

Having failed to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear 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.

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

Barnett v. ESA Enterprise Staffing Agency, LLC · filed 2025-06-26(a)

Additionally, the Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the OCSOA brought under 24 O.S. §§ 131, et seq., as this claim is so related to Plaintiff’s FCRA claim that the claims 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 federal claims.

HERRERA v. QUALITY CHEVROLET GMC OF ENGLEWOOD, INC. · filed 2025-06-30(a)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the State law claims (Counts III and IV) share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant such that the claims in Counts III and IV “are 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.

Scott v. Wexford Health Service · filed 2025-07-14(a)

Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

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

Goudarzi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA · filed 2025-07-16(a)

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Plaintiffs assert claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 12 C.F.R. § 1002.2(e), and Plaintiffs’ state-law claims form part of the same controversy as the federal causes of action.

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

(SS) Doe A.G. v. Olmos · filed 2025-07-25(a)

This Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s two state law causes of action, because they are “so related to claims in the action” over which the Court has original jurisdiction “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Accordingly, the Court has federal question jurisdiction and shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

(PC) Hill v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept. · filed 2025-07-29(a)

The undersigned will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, given they appear “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) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same course of conduct as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o. · filed 2025-07-31(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Claims 3-8, which are wage and hour claims asserted under state law, as those claims arise out of the same course of conduct that form the basis of the FLSA claims.

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

Potter v. Clear Recon Corporation · filed 2025-08-05(a)

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

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

Richard v. Google LLC · filed 2025-08-15(a)

Because the same set of operative facts control Plaintiff’s federal and state claims, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Xlink Resource Group, LLC v. Expo Petroleum Oil and Gas, LLC · filed 2025-08-20(a)

Further, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims as they are “so related that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

MORRIS v. MYERS · filed 2025-08-21(a)

The parties do not dispute that Morris' state law claims—Count I: Negligence And/Or Intentional Conduct—form the same case or controversy, and the Court concludes that they do. Because the Court concludes that Morris' Fourth Amendment claim shall proceed, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims in Count I.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact as live federal claims.

Price v. Greene County, Arkansas · filed 2025-08-21(a)

This makes supplemental jurisdiction over all surviving state- law claims brought by Plaintiff appropriate in the instant case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against an additional defendant when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, even if that claimant asserts no federal claim.

Li v. Greatcare, Inc. · filed 2025-08-21(a)

Because all the MLTCs allegedly used the same compensation policies, and all Plaintiffs were employed and subjected to such policies through GreatCare, the facts underlying the federal and state claims overlap substantially. Accordingly, Ms. Li’s NYLL claims are so related to the Federal Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims as to form part of the same case or controversy, and the Court can properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction of her claims against CenterLight even though she, herself, is not asserting federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims arising from the same conduct as a federal claim.

Yehudah v. Optoid Print3D Eyewear · filed 2025-08-25(a)

However, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state and city claims brought under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL because they relate to the same conduct that forms the basis of the plaintiff’s federal claim.

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

Goorin Bros., Inc. v. GoldStarHat LLC · filed 2025-08-26(a)

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

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

Fisher v. Valley Stream Central High School District · filed 2025-08-27(a)

As I explain below, Discussion Section X, 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 that form part of the same case or controversy.

Jarrett v. Still · filed 2025-09-09(a)

The Court has supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction over state law claims if they form part of the same case or controversy, as here.

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

Gomez v. Timberline Custom Builders, LLC · filed 2025-09-10(a)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s CWA and CMWA claims are so related to Plaintiff's FLSA claim that they form part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Kellyman v. Columbia Debt Recovery LLC · filed 2025-09-10(a)

The Court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over all claims arising from the same case or controversy and will do so.

Section 1367(a) requires a state-law claim to form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Tolbert v. Weyrich · filed 2025-09-10(a)

There is no other allegation that the unmarked vehicles are so closely linked with Plaintiff’s remaining claim that they form part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, this claim is also dismissed.

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

Barron v. Sterling Sugars Sales Corp · filed 2025-09-11

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under ... 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because these claims 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 claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Shields v. Thompson · filed 2025-09-16(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 against the remaining defendants.

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

Everage v. Gayheart · filed 2025-09-17(a)

Here, the Court finds that the claims do arise from the same dispute and share a common set of operative facts. ... Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims.

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

Reworld Sumter Industrial, LLC v. VEP Environmental LLC · filed 2025-09-19(a)

The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as they form part of the same case or controversy.

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

Cruz v. N.V. & Sons Builders Incorporated · filed 2025-09-25(a)

This lends the Court supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s AMWA and AWA state law claims because they are part of the same case or controversy.

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

Franklin v. Bryan · filed 2025-09-29(a)

Despite Plaintiff’s failure to make an affirmative allegation, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s state and federal law claims “form part of the same case or controversy” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Neal v. Town & Country Ford LLC · filed 2025-09-30(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the plaintiffs’ state-law claims “are so related to” the plaintiffs’ Title VII claims such “that they form part of the same case or controversy,” the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state- law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over other plaintiffs’ claims arising from the same accident when one plaintiff’s claim independently satisfies diversity jurisdiction.

Alvarez v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc. · filed 2025-10-07(a)

Thus, on July 9, 2025, had defendants timely removed the case, this Court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Encarnacion plaintiffs’ claims.

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

Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Ruiz · filed 2025-10-07(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Innovative’s state-law claims because they arise from the same facts that give rise to the Court’s original jurisdiction.

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

Court of Master Sommeliers Americas v. Broshious · filed 2025-10-08(a)

Thus, the interference claim is part of the “same case or controversy” and derives from a “common nucleus of operative fact” as the relevant claims in the Complaint. ... Turning next to Defendants’ Breach of Contract claim, the Court also finds that there is a common nucleus of operative fact between Defendants’ claim and the relevant claims in the Complaint. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the Amended Counterclaim.

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

Neal · filed 2025-10-22(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the plaintiffs’ state-law claims “are so related to” the plaintiffs’ Title VII claims such “that they form part of the same case or controversy,” the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Droberg · filed 2025-10-24(a)

Defendant's alleged breach of the settlement agreement forms the basis of plaintiff's Section 504 and ADA claims, and the Court will thus exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law contract claims.

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.

Macomber · filed 2025-10-24(a)

The undersigned will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s lone state law claim, given it appears “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 that arise from the same dispute as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Trust · filed 2025-10-27(a)

The Court elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The state law claims all derive from the same dispute over Ms. Richards’ purchase of a vehicle from Carvana that was financed by Bridgecrest, and thus are part of the same case or controversy as the FCRA claims.

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

Beys · filed 2025-10-29(a)

... also be removed on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction because it forms part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int'l Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint centers on a single issue: who controls FTE. Both stated claims for relief flow from that central dispute. Removal of both claims is therefore proper.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims inextricably linked to federal claims as part of the same case or controversy.

City of Springfield, Ohio v. The Blood Tribe · filed 2025-11-13(a)

Further, the Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. In essence, Plaintiffs’ seven other claims either allege the same conspiracy under state law or allege causes of action which, if proven, may constitute overt acts in furtherance of a civil rights conspiracy. This is all to say that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are inextricably linked to their federal claims involving an alleged conspiracy to violate civil rights.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim premised on the same facts as a federal claim.

S.G · filed 2025-11-20(a)

The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law negligence claim because the claim is “part of the same case or controversy” as the plaintiff’s TVPRA claim.

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

Smith v. MV Transportation · filed 2025-11-25(a)

The state law claims are based on the same facts and circumstances as the federal claim, and the Court finds it is appropriate to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) limits supplemental jurisdiction to claims that form part of the same case or controversy.

Keen · filed 2025-12-10(a)

Certainly, Keen cannot bootstrap parties that would not be properly joined under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 20 onto a case involving unrelated ERISA claims and then invoke the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which is reserved for claims that form part of the “same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Reich · filed 2025-12-12(a)

Therefore, Antimo’s claims and Reich’s counterclaim form part of the same case or controversy.

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

Alexander · filed 2025-12-17(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over Alexander’s assault and battery claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state and federal claims involve the same parties and the same use-of-force incident.

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

Tanner · filed 2025-12-17(a)

Because it arose from the “same case or controversy” as Tanner’s federal § 1983 claims alleging constitutional violations, the Court was able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same allegations as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Francis · filed 2025-12-18(a)

Here, plaintiff's assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are based on the same allegations that give rise to the excessive force claims, which have survived sua sponte review. As a result, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's related state law claims, which also survive sua sponte review and require a response.

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

Clark v. US Bancorp/U.S. Bank · filed 2025-12-19(a)

Moreover, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the MHRA claims because they form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

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

Tehrani v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2025-12-19(a)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to causes of action three through nine, which arise under California law, is appropriate. Thus, those claims are “so related” to the causes of action that arise under federal law “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1367(a) requires state-law and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts for supplemental jurisdiction.

Frye-Chaikin · filed 2025-12-30(a)

Because the federal claims and the real estate claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a).

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

Young · filed 2026-01-08(a)

This court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim because it is so related to the federal claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

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

HorizonMatrix · filed 2026-01-14(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the California unfair competition law claim because it arises out of the same facts as the copyright claim such that the state law claim is part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same Article III case or controversy as claims within their original jurisdiction.

Hinds · filed 2026-02-02(a)

Regardless, as the Court has federal question jurisdiction over some of Hinds’ discrimination and retaliation claims, it has supplemental jurisdiction over his NYCHRL claims as they “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.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are sufficiently related to federal claims.

King · filed 2026-02-10(a)

Given how interrelated the state law claims are to the Fourth Amendment claims, this Court finds it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution and defamation.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same events as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Laccinole · filed 2026-02-11(a)

As each of plaintiff's claims arises out of the same 30 phone calls, the remaining three counts fall within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same case or controversy as a federal claim; a plaintiff seeking it must show that connection.

Sandy Phillips v. Stoddard County Circuit Court, et al. · filed 2026-02-20(a)

To the extent Plaintiff is requesting that this federal court exert supplemental jurisdiction over any Missouri-law claims, Plaintiff must plead enough facts to support each state claim she seeks to pursue, and demonstrate that those claims arise from the same case or controversy as her federal claims.

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

Sealed Plaintiff 1 v. Patriot Front · filed 2026-02-27(a)

As aresult, Plaintiffs’ state-law claims and federal-law claims are “so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy,” meaning the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count III.

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

Mays · filed 2026-03-05(a)

For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as the state law claims against UPG are so related to the federal claims against Blue Ridge that they are “part of the same case or controversy.”

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

Orsell · filed 2026-03-11(a)

Additionally, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that even if Plaintiff amended her Complaint to demonstrate that the defamation claims are not time barred and that she served a notice of claim upon the municipality (or no such service is required), Plaintiff’s defamation claims are not so related to Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claims—which are the only claims that Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended dismissing with leave to amend—such that they form part of the same case or controversy. ... Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

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

Davidson · filed 2026-03-19(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law conspiracy claim because it arises from the same operative facts as his federal claims.

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

Stratton · filed 2026-03-23(a)

Further, as to both claims, that such claims may overlap (whether by their elements or the factual allegations asserted to fulfill their respective elements) with Plaintiff’s Maryland’s statutory claims is not a jurisdictional defect; to the contrary, it is the bedrock of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims that share a logical relationship with a federal claim and form part of the same case or controversy.

Silva · filed 2026-03-23(a)

As explained below, the Court concludes that all of Hercules’s counterclaims meet the logical relationship test, such that they form part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s FLSA claim.

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

Akinola · filed 2026-03-24(a)

Because there is still a federal claim in this case that makes up a part of the same “case or controversy” as the state law claim, dismissal is unwarranted.

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

West · filed 2026-03-25(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as the civil action over which this court has original jurisdiction.

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

Dowdy · filed 2026-03-25(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) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims arising from a controversy that prompted protected speech merely because the plaintiff also alleges federal retaliation for that speech.

Sharp · filed 2026-03-30(a)

The fact that a plaintiff alleges First Amendment retaliation in response to protected speech does not, by itself, confer federal jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the controversy that initially prompted the plaintiff’s speech.

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

Fontenot · filed 2026-03-31(a)

Although Counts V through XIV arise under Alabama state law, the court finds that those claims are “so related to” the federal law claims as to form “part of the same case or controversy” and give rise to supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Groeneweg · filed 2026-04-07(a)

The claims share this common nucleus of operative fact and thus arise out of the same case or controversy. Thus, because the Court has original jurisdiction over the FDCPA claim and the state law claims are part of the same case or controversy, the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims unless Groeneweg can show one of the exceptions applies.

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.

Garcia · filed 2026-04-13(a)

Therefore, because the state law claim against the Town of Brighton is inextricably linked to the federal claims against the Munford Defendants, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share the same parties, underlying facts, and employment relationship as a surviving federal claim.

Thompson · filed 2026-04-17(a)

Thompson’s remaining claims for declaratory relief and breach of employment agreement involve the same parties, underlying facts, and employment relationship relevant to Thompson’s ERISA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are sufficiently related to claims within original jurisdiction to form the same case or controversy.

Travis · filed 2026-04-21(a)

Further, while Plaintiff attempts to connect the current action with the state action, the Court finds that the claims in the current case are not so related to the claims in the state action that would warrant supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lester · filed 2026-04-21(a)

The district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois negligence claim because it is “so related to [the federal law claims] that [it] form[s] part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

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.

Hall · filed 2026-04-30(a)

Thus, Hall’s second claim is sufficiently related to his first and forms part of the same case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Consequently, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over his second claim.

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

Jusino · filed 2026-05-07(a)

First, it is clear that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim arises out of the same common nucleus of facts as his remaining Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.

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

Medina · filed 2026-05-13(a)

Those cross-claims are essentially the same as those presented in Raymond James’ amended complaint in interpleader and, therefore, they are unquestionably “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 (alteration supplied).

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

Develles · filed 2026-05-18(a)

In summary, the Court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law “that are so related to” the federal claim “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... This is because each is based on the same events as Count IX, so they clearly arise from the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an ancillary receivership action that is part of the same case or controversy as an action within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Moglia · filed 2026-05-28(a)

The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... This action is part of the same case or controversy.

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

Estate of Pidgeon v. Rutland Hospital · filed 2026-06-08(a)

Those claims are directly related to the EMTALA failure to screen claim alleged in Count II, and “form part of the same case or controversy.” Id. The Court therefore retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action, and the motion to dismiss those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Malletier v. Veit · filed 2002-06-28(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint which arise under the statutory and common law of the State of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because the state law claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to hear state-law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Petrello v. Matthew W. Prucka, Sheryl S. Prucka, Rahul Nath and Usha Nath · filed 2013-09-24(a)

Our conclusion that Petrello’s claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts implies that all of the claims could have been pursued together in the federal trial pursuant to the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when it is related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction as part of the same case or controversy.

Rickmyer v. Browne · filed 2014-02-05(a)

Furthermore, supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate to exercise here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (permitting the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that is “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 provides supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same Article III case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Sundquist v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Sundquist) · filed 2017-11-15

Recognizing the overlap between “arising in” and “related to,” the claim for a lien for fees qualifies as “related to” the title 11 case on the- supplemental jurisdiction theory that it is so related to the § 362 and § 329(b) claims within this court’s original jurisdictional that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims.

United States of America v. Supervalu Inc · filed 2024-09-30(a)

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged herein because the facts forming the basis of the state law claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims that arise from the same general allegations as the claims within federal jurisdiction.

Goss v. Aetna, Inc. · filed 2019-01-31(a)

As a final note, to the extent that only some of Plaintiff's state law claims are completely preempted under ERISA, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because all of the claims "arise out of the same general allegations."

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

Strojnik v. Ensemble Hotel Partners, LLC · filed 2019-10-30(a)

Accordingly, on the record presented, the Court finds no basis to conclude that Hotel ... Partners’s counterclaim is so related to the claims in this action falling 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 when its facts are so related to federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Brock v. Mental Health and Addiction Services · filed 2022-03-01(a)

Her alleged conduct in assaulting Plaintiff was one of the actions Plaintiff alleges contributed to creating a discriminatory environment, giving rise to an “assault and battery” claim with facts “so related” to the Title VII claims “that [it] form[s] part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within their original jurisdiction.

(PC) Taylor v. Teragawa · filed 2023-09-15(a)

Defendant agrees and the Court finds it has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims where no original jurisdiction exists. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section 1367(a) provides “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.” Id. In the instant case, the underlying facts of Plaintiff’s state law claim are directly related to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment ... claim.

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

Allmaras v. University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc. · filed 2024-11-20(a)

Because each of Defendant’s other claims is “intertwined with [Count Six] such that they are a part of the same case or controversy, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction to adjudicate ... these claims as well.”

Section 1367 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.

Graves v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2025-09-10(a)

As with the claim against Merchants, the court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the claim against Murray because: (a) the court has original, federal-question jurisdiction over Graves’s claim against defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“RESPA”); and (b) 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.

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

Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada · filed 2011-07-08(a)

Because those claims form “part of the same case or controversy” ... as Quail’s securities fraud claim, the district court has, at the very least, supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Quail Cruises Ship Management LTD. v. Agencia De Viagens etc. · filed 2011-07-08(a)

Because those claims form “part of the same case or controversy” ... as Quail’s securities fraud claim, the district court has, at the very least, supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Gardes Directional Drilling v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc. · filed 1993-03-16(a)

Supplemental subject matter jurisdiction lies for those claims that are so related to the in rem lien claims as to form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over contract and unjust enrichment claims that form part of the same case or controversy as an FCA claim.

United States v. Unified Industries, Inc. · filed 1996-06-10(a)

Section 1367(a) codifies federal supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim over which there is jurisdiction. The government’s unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims plainly fall within the scope of § 1367(a), for these claims form part of the same case or controversy as the government’s FCA claims.

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

Mitchell v. Kay · filed 2023-01-03(a)

Because the Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims have passed initial review, and the assault and battery claims are part of the same case or controversy, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) covers state-law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims because they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Smith v. Swaffer · filed 2023-01-04(a)

To the extent there is any question about personal jurisdiction over Mr. Swaffer regarding the State-law claims of Mr. Hollis, or any other Plaintiffs, as in Smith those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims, such that (1) they form part of the same case and controversy under Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and (2) there is no substantive or procedural unfairness to Mr. Swaffer from defending against those claims here.

Section 1367(a) covers state-law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims because they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

JMELT LLC v. Swaffer · filed 2023-01-04(a)

To the extent there is any question about personal jurisdiction over Mr. Swaffer regarding the State-law claims of Mr. Hollis, or any other Plaintiffs, as in Smith those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims, such that (1) they form part of the same case and controversy under Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and (2) there is no substantive or procedural unfairness to Mr. Swaffer from defending against those claims here.

Section 1367(a) permits state-law allegations alongside federal allegations when they are closely related enough to form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Jones v. Madden · filed 2023-01-06(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 that form part of the same Article III case or controversy as federal claims.

Hernandez v. McKinley · filed 2023-01-11(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law 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.” ... Plaintiff may proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and a state law battery claim against Officer McKinley.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that forms the same case or controversy as claims within the court's original jurisdiction.

Plumbers' Pension Fund, Local 130, U.A. v. Daniel Pellegrini Plumbing, LLC · filed 2023-01-18(a)

This Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state law claim. This Court has original jurisdiction over the first two claims, and the third claim is so related that it forms the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Carter v. South Dakota Dept. of Corrections · filed 2023-01-18(a)

Carter’s South Dakota Human Relations Act claim is part of the same “case or controversy” as his First Amendment free exercise claims. Thus, this Court appears to have supplemental jurisdiction over Carter’s state-law South Dakota Human Relations Act claim.

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

Taylor v. Wellpath Medical · filed 2023-01-18(a)

These state-law claims will be allowed to proceed under the Court's supplemental jurisdiction because they concern part of the same controversy as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same nucleus of facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction, including claims against other defendants.

RDK NY Inc. v. The City of New York · filed 2023-01-20(a)

Here, however, the court does have supplemental jurisdiction over Ronen’s claims because they arise from the same nucleus of facts as the claims over which this Court has federal jurisdiction.

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

Bodied By Bella Boutique v. Bodyed By Bella · filed 2023-01-23(a)

Here, Plaintiff’s state law claims rely on the same facts as the federal claims. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion to assert supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share material facts with a federal claim and arise from the same case or controversy.

TCR, LLC v. Teton County · filed 2023-01-23(a)

Because TCR’s claims under federal and state law share material facts, the claims arise from the same case or controversy for supplemental jurisdiction purposes.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as surviving federal claims, even when the named plaintiffs’ own federal claims are dismissed.

Wilson v. Wings Over Happy Valley MDF · filed 2023-01-24(a)

Here, the Court concludes that the Named Plaintiffs’ state law claims—asserted under Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act and Wage Payment and Collection Law—are “so related” to the FLSA collective claims remaining in this case that “they form part of the same case or controversy.” See id. § 1367(a).

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

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565AN · filed 2023-01-25(a)

The Court finds that supplemental jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiff Liberty’s claims derive from the same nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiff AGS’ maritime lien claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a state law claim to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Weingeist v. Tropix Media and Entertainment · filed 2023-02-01(a)

The seven state law claims raised in the third-party complaint are not related to the federal question raised in Weingeist’s initial complaint because they do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Ikegwuoha v. Art Village Gallery · filed 2023-02-09(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court certainly has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims, as they “are so related to” the claims against FedEx Ground (over which the Court had federal question 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) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law derivative claims that are related to a federal securities claim, if the federal claim is properly part of the lawsuit.

Burkhart v. Leasure · filed 2023-02-17(a)

The complaints plausibly allege that the state law derivative claims are related to the federal securities law claim such that the Court could assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law derivative claims if the federal securities law claim is properly a part of the lawsuit.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to general maritime claims sharing the same alleged injury, parties, time frame, and facts as a Jones Act claim within original federal question jurisdiction.

Matthews v. Tidewater Crewing, Ltd · filed 2023-02-28(a)

The Court finds this nexus sufficient to exercise § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s general maritime claims.

Section 1367(a) reaches third-party claims that depend on the original claim and share a common nucleus of operative fact with it.

Central Bank of the Midwest v. Nueterra Capital, LLC · filed 2023-03-06(a)

Here, the facts overlap substantially between the claim against Nueterra and the claims against Platinum. The claims against Platinum depend upon the claim against Nueterra and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Smith v. Local Union No. 110, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · filed 2010-01-13(a)

Because it is clear that Smith has alleged at least a federal “fair representation” claim, and that such a claim is subject to federal jurisdiction, the entire action was properly removed to federal court and this Court has supplemental federal jurisdiction over the additional claims because they arise from the same case or controversy supporting the federal claim.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim whose operative facts are separate from those of the original federal claim.

Gill v. McCollum · filed 2010-01-14(a)

Because the facts required to determine Plaintiff's state-law tort (or state-law contract claim) are quite separate from the facts at issue in his original 1983 claim, no jurisdiction exists for a federal court to rule on the state-law claims.

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

In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 2010-01-27(a)

The claims arising from the September and January offerings appear to be part of the same common nucleus of operative fact as the claims arising from the May and June 2007 offerings, as all are related to the same series of SEC filings by the same company, and so the claims all appear to be part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant facing no federal claim when those claims arise from the same alleged conduct as federal claims against other defendants.

Villarreal v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n · filed 2010-07-06(a)

While it is true that Plaintiff “has brought no federal claims against defendant Chase,” it is also true that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction over West and Niagara because Plaintiff sued West and Niagara under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (D.E. 32, p. 2-3.) This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims that “are so related to claims in the action ... that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“Except as provided ..., in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, 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....”) In this case, Plaintiffs state law claims against Chase, West, and Niagara are closely intertwined with Plaintiffs federal law claims against West and Niagara.

Section 1367(a) requires a state law claim to form part of the same case or controversy as a remaining claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; dismissal of the related federal claim can leave the state claim outside supplemental jurisdiction.

Robinson v. Danberg · filed 2010-08-05(a)

The court concludes that upon dismissal of the § 1983 personal property claim, the state tort theft claim is not so related to the remaining claims in the action to form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Doe v. Nestle, S.A. · filed 2010-09-08(a)

The Court concludes that Global Exchange’s Unfair Competition Law claims are not “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 claims below the diversity amount when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Miller v. Up in Smoke, Inc. · filed 2010-09-08(a)

These claims are undoubtedly part of the same case or controversy as the shareholder derivative claims because they are derived from a common nucleus of operative fact — the alleged mismanagement of Up In Smoke and CR Smoke, misappropriation of corporate assets, and breach of fiduciary duty by the Rodriguez’s and Estep Accounting.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim before the court.

Scanlan v. US, STATE FARM INS. CO. · filed 2010-09-22(a)

Because Count II forms part of the same case or controversy as Count I, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count II.

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

D.R. Ex Rel. Courtney R. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District · filed 2010-10-08(a)

Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim is so related to her Section 504 and ADA claims that they form the same case and controversy.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a state-law claim unrelated to the federal claims.

Johnson v. City of Kankakee, Il · filed 2010-10-18(a)

Nor do we see any error in the ... district court’s conclusion that Johnson’s spat with Aqua over his water bill has nothing to do with Kankakee’s rental ordinance.

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

Brown v. Englander, et al. · filed 2010-11-24(a)

Plaintiff’s state law negligence, medical malpractice, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims arise out of the same facts and circumstances asserted in his federal claims. Accordingly, at this juncture, there is no good reason not to exercise this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim for uniform-maintenance payments that shares no common nucleus of operative fact with a federal overtime claim.

Hoops v. KEYSPAN ENERGY · filed 2011-03-08(a)

Here, the Court finds that the FLSA and the Labor Law claims do not arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact. The FLSA claim is for overtime compensation, and the payments that the Defendants allegedly owe for the maintenance and laundering of uniforms constitute additional compensation in addition to the Plaintiffs straight-time wage rate. This additional compensation is not considered a part of the Plaintiffs wages, and therefore does not factor in to the calculation of the Plaintiffs regular rate for purposes of overtime compensation. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs Labor Law claim fails to meet the same “case or controversy” requirement of Section 1367(a), the Court grants the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a tort claim that presents a controversy different from the federal claim.

Kromrey v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2011-05-20(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction does not apply, because Kromrey’s tort claim against Dolenz is a controversy different from his claim against the Department under the FOIA. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that derive from the same nucleus of operative facts as claims within its original jurisdiction and form part of the same case or controversy.

Evans v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2011-08-25(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Evans’ state-law claims because they derive from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal-law claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction and thus 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 federal claims and form part of the same case or controversy.

Konah v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-09-14(a)

The court therefore concludes that the plaintiff’s state and federal claims arise from one “common nucleus of operative fact.” As such, the plaintiff’s common law claims are part of the same “case or controversy” under Article III.

Section 1367(a) covers non-preempted state-law claims that are so related to claims within original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Fossen v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. · filed 2011-10-18(a)

Although the district court did not explicitly discuss supplemental jurisdiction, the court evidently concluded that any non-preempted state- law claims were “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). We agree with that con- clusion, but add that the district court is free to reexamine this issue on remand.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law contract counterclaim arising from the same case or controversy as a viable patent infringement counterclaim.

SV International, Inc. v. Fu Jian Quanyu Industry Co. · filed 2011-10-26(a)

Here, Fu Jian’s patent infringement and breach of contract claims both arise from the method in which Plaintiffs construct their wooden newel posts and will likely involve the introduction of similar evidence. ... Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to retain the infringement claim, and Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

Jackson v. Post University, Inc. · filed 2011-12-07(a)

Plaintiffs CFEPA claim, based on racial discrimination with respect to the termination of his employment by Post, is “so related to” his federal Section 1981 claim “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Specifically, both claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a tort claim that is a different controversy from the federal claim.

Kromrey v. DOJ · filed 2011-12-21(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction does not apply, because Kromrey’s tort claim against Dolenz is a controversy different from his claim against the Department under the FOIA. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share the same operative facts as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Santiago v. Keyes · filed 2012-03-08(a)

Here, Plaintiffs claims clearly fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction as all of the claims asserted stem from the alleged misconduct of various law enforcement officers and the assistant district attorney as it pertains to his arrest and detention.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same course of events as claims within their original jurisdiction.

Malavé-Torres v. Cusido · filed 2012-03-15(a)

The complaint describes a single course of events to plead both federal and Puerto Rico causes of action, and defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of supplemental jurisdiction. The court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over the Commonwealth claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a crossclaim sufficiently related to the original claims to form part of the same case or controversy.

Prestige Capital Corp. v. Pipeliners of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2012-03-29(a)

Therefore, it is apparent that Prestige has a vested interest in the successful vindication of Pipeliners’ claims against EDB, making these claims sufficiently related to those of Prestige to form part of the same case or controversy under the Constitution.

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

Sankar v. City of New York · filed 2012-03-30(a)

Because two of plaintiffs federal law claims survive and plaintiffs state law claims “are so related to claims in the action within [the Court’s federal question] jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III,” the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Retirement Board of Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund v. Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2012-04-03(a)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims if they “form part of the same case or controversy” as the remaining TIA claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Here, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are based on the same alleged failures of BNYM and Countrywide underlying the remaining TIA claims. As such, this Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Grissom v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-04-06(a)

Because the state-law claims are “part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as the surviving federal claims, the Court ultimately will retain jurisdiction over the entire case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim only if it is part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the federal court’s original jurisdiction.

Copeland v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC · filed 2012-04-06(a)

The supplemental-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), permits a court to entertain a claim that is part of the same case or controversy as the claim within a federal court’s original jurisdiction. Plain- tiffs do not contend that a supposed breach of the logistics agreement between Penske Logistics and the Indianapolis Star is the same “controversy” as a sup- posed breach of the CBA between Penske Logistics and Local 135. Jurisdiction therefore would depend on diver- sity of citizenship.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims.

Benn v. City of New York · filed 2012-05-23

Benn’s state and municipal claims “form part of the same case or controversy” with his federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In such circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction to grant summary judgment on the state and municipal law claims.