28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(b) prevents nondiverse plaintiffs from using intervention to evade complete diversity in an action based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

Ruiz-Hance v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority · filed 2009-01-27(b)

For example, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, identifies situations in which supplemental jurisdiction shall not be exercised, in particular where the joinder of persons seeking to be made parties under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14, 19, 20 or 24 would erode the complete diversity rule. ... Accordingly we hereby hold that a plaintiff cannot leave nondiverse potential co-plaintiffs out of the original lawsuit and then wait for them to intervene or be joined otherwise.

Section 1367(b) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse defendant intervener when the plaintiffs assert no claims against it and its interests are substantially adverse to theirs.

Price v. Wolford · filed 2010-06-17(b)

Although § 1367(b) sets forth exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction, they are not applicable here. ... Neither exception applies here because OHCA intervened as a defendant, not a plaintiff, and Plaintiffs assert no claims against it. ... In this case there is a substantial conflict between OHCA and Plaintiffs. Any sum going to OHCA is taken from Plaintiffs’ recovery. Therefore, we cannot realign OHCA as a plaintiff, and the district court had jurisdiction over the entire suit after OHCA’s intervention.

Section 1367(b) bars a nondiverse class member from intervening as a named plaintiff in a diversity class action.

Klein v. O'Neal, Inc. · filed 2010-06-18(b)

He admits that the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), facially prohibits intervention because he and Retrae are both citizens of Ohio and therefore complete diversity does not exist. ... But assuming that he has standing and considering the merits of the motion, the court holds that Long has pointed to no legal grounds that would allow him to intervene in the case, and his brief offers no compelling reason to find constitutional error.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse plaintiff who intervenes under Rule 24 in an action founded solely on diversity jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Qualawash Holdings, L.L.C. · filed 2014-01-06(b)

As noted in the court’s prior ruling in this matter, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) prohibits the court from exercising jurisdiction over a matter where a non-diverse plaintiff is made a party under Rule 24.

Section 1367(b) prevents a court hearing a diversity case from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse plaintiff who intervenes under Rule 24 when doing so would violate the requirements of § 1332.

Zenith Insurance Company v. Distinctive Surfaces LLC · filed 2020-07-31(b)

In the case at hand, common sense and the law indicate Mays, as a nondiverse intervenor as of right under Rule 24(a), is a necessary and indispensable party to the adjudication of this suit. Because Mays’ intervention has destroyed diversity, this court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed.

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

Telligent Masonry, LLC v. Continental Casualty Company · filed 2019-10-29(a)

With intervention as of right, Grunley’s counterclaims may be considered by the Court via its supplemental jurisdiction to hear “claims that are 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).

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over Rule 24 intervenors’ claims when the court has jurisdiction solely through diversity and the intervenor claims would conflict with § 1332; the bar does not apply when federal-question jurisdiction exists.

White v. New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company · filed 2021-11-18(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, if a district court solely has diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims, the court will not have supplemental jurisdiction over claims by Rule 24 intervenors, when jurisdiction would be inconsistent with § 1332 requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). However, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the present matter, not diversity, by virtue of Plaintiff’s claim under Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss intervention is without merit.

Section 1367(b) does not exclude counterclaims by a party properly aligned as an intervenor defendant from supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity case.

Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. Ivan's Painting LLC · filed 2022-03-03(b)

That distinction is dispositive here because § 1367(b) only excludes claims brought by persons seeking to intervene as a plaintiff. Owners is an intervenor-defendant, and, thus, its counterclaims are not excluded by § 1367(b).

Section 1367(a) requires an intervenor’s claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction; meeting Rule 24(a)(2) alone does not establish supplemental jurisdiction.

Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Lanka · filed 2025-04-10(a)

But even acknowledging that likelihood, the standard for supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 is still the “common nucleus” standard – not Rule 24(a)(2)’s interest test.

Section 1367 does not give a court supplemental jurisdiction over Jean-Paul’s proposed cross-claims against the Burkas.

Burka v. Aetna Life Insurance · filed 1996-02-12

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court is without supplemental jurisdiction to hear Jean-Paul’s claims against the Burkas.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an intervention claim sufficiently related to a federal question claim, without an independent jurisdictional basis for the intervenor’s claim.

Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne · filed 2005-10-25(a)

First, since M artin and Bantel were decided, statutory jurisdictional rules were enacted expressly providing a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over intervention claims that are sufficiently related to the main claim over which the court has federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Brook Village v HUD · filed 2006-11-13(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over claims raised by intervenors that are part of the same case or controversy as the original case over which the court has jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an intervention complaint when the underlying case rests on federal question jurisdiction.

Louisiana State v. Department of Commerce · filed 2021-12-20(a)

When, however, the district court exercises federal question jurisdiction, ... supplemental jurisdiction over the intervention complaint is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought by a Rule 14 third-party defendant against the original plaintiff in a diversity case.

Metro Foundation Contractors, Inc. v. Arch Insurance · filed 2012-09-28(b)

Rather, MMA was served with a third-party complaint as a third-party defendant under Rule 14. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14. Thus, the portion of the statute Metro relies upon is inapplicable on its face.

When jurisdiction rests on diversity, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim against an impleaded party.

Da Cruz v. Towmasters of New Jersey, Inc. · filed 2003-06-17(b)

Nor can this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims made by plaintiffs against an impleaded party. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b).

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s direct claim against a third-party defendant when the original jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship.

Lee v. Regal Cruises, Ltd. · filed 1996-02-22(b)

Given that the basis of federal jurisdiction with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants is diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) prohibits the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ direct claim against the third party defendant.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant’s third-party claim merely because the defendant and third-party defendant lack diversity.

Unistrut Space Frame Systems, Inc. v. Atlantic Plate & Window Glass, Co. · filed 1996-12-31(b)

The requirements of § 1367(b) have not been contravened. ... Contrary to Fireman’s analysis, that section bars supplemental jurisdiction over third party claims by the plaintiff. ... APG is the defendant, not the plaintiff.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims against a Rule 14 third-party defendant when original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity.

ARE Sikeston Ltd. v. Weslock National, Inc. · filed 1997-07-22(b)

Thus, § 1367(b) bars the district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over ARE Sikeston’s claims against Westinghouse.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims against a third-party defendant joined under Rule 14 when original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity, even if the case was removed from state court.

ARE Sikeston Limited Partnership v. Weslock National · filed 1997-07-22(b)

In the instant action, although the district court's removal jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1441, its original jurisdiction was founded solely on § 1332, and Westinghouse, as a third-party defendant, was made a party pursuant to Rule 14. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a) (governing when a defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, can bring an additional party into an action as a third-party defendant). Thus, § 1367(b) bars the district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over ARE Sikeston's claims against Westinghouse.

Section 1367(b) permits a third-party plaintiff to implead a nondiverse third-party defendant without an independent jurisdictional basis when jurisdiction exists over the original action.

Garfield Slope Housing Corp. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance · filed 1997-08-05(b)

Contrary to Public Service’s contentions, however, the absence of diversity jurisdiction does not compel dismissal of Garfield’s action, for ancillary jurisdiction over this third-party complaint has been established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) (1996). A third-party complainant, such as Garfield, is not required to establish an independent jurisdictional basis for its action in order to implead a third-party defendant, such as Public Service, into another action for which jurisdiction has already been established.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim against a defendant joined under Rule 20 in a diversity-only action unless the claim independently meets § 1332’s jurisdictional requirements.

American Building Maintenance Co. v. 1000 Water Street Condominium Ass'n · filed 1998-06-30(b)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not allow a court, when original jurisdiction is based only' on diversity, to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that was made a party under Rule 20 unless that claim also meets the jurisdictional requirement of the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party contribution claim without an independent basis for jurisdiction over that claim.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 1999-03-17(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim for contribution brought as a third-party action; there is no need for an independent basis for jurisdiction over such a claim.

In a diversity case, § 1367(b) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse fourth-party defendant’s claims against the original plaintiff, but bars the original plaintiff’s claims or counterclaims against that defendant.

Viacom International, Inc. v. Kearney · filed 2000-05-19(b)

Under this analysis, a non-diverse fourth-party defendant such as Taylor Forge may bring claims against plaintiff Viacom (“downsloping claims”), but Viacom may not bring claims — or counterclaims — against Taylor Forge (“upsloping claims”).

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse fourth-party defendant’s Rule 14(a) claims against the original plaintiff.

Viacom International, Inc. v. Kearney · filed 2000-05-19(b)

Accordingly, we find that § 1367(b) poses no bar to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor Forge's downsloping Rule 14(a) claims against Viacom, and the only issues for adjudication are (1) whether such claims are "part of the same case or controversy" under §1367(a), and (2) whether § 1367(c) counsels against the exercise of such jurisdiction.

Section 1367(b) limits plaintiffs’ efforts to join non-diverse parties in diversity cases; it does not bar a defendant’s third-party claim against a non-diverse party.

Baker v. Westin Rio Mar Beach Resort, Inc. · filed 2000-06-21(b)

Thus, section 1367(b)’s limitation applies only to plaintiffs’ efforts to join non-diverse parties.

Section 1367(b) excludes certain claims by original plaintiffs or those seeking to intervene on their side from supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases, but does not exclude a defendant’s third-party claim against an alleged joint tortfeasor.

Timbrook v. Metzeler Automotive Profile Systems Iowa, Inc. · filed 2002-07-25(b)

Only claims by original plaintiffs or those seeking to intervene on the side of an original plaintiff are within the § 1367(b) exception to supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim against a nondiverse third-party defendant impleaded under Rule 14 in a diversity action.

Carolina Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. · filed 2004-11-19(b)

Thus, by its plain language, Section 1367(b) provides that, in a diversity action, district courts will not have supplemental jurisdiction over any non-diverse persons made parties under Rules 14, 19, 20 or 24 of the federal rules. Because Carolina Asphalt impleads Cleland pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 14, the court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

When original jurisdiction rests on diversity, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims against a defendant joined under Rule 20 if those claims do not meet § 1332’s amount in controversy requirement.

First Transit, Inc. v. City of Racine · filed 2005-03-09(b)

Accordingly, under § 1367(b), I may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims against Glasheen.

Section 1367(b) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant’s third-party claims against nondiverse parties because its restriction on claims by plaintiffs applies to original plaintiffs.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. E.L. Habetz Builders, Inc. · filed 2007-07-11(b)

Additionally, USFG relies on jurisprudence from the Fifth Circuit and other Circuits indicating the term “plaintiff as found in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) refers only to the original plaintiff in the action, not to a defendant who happens to be a counter-plaintiff, cross-plaintiff, or third-party plaintiff.” ... Seeing no error in law, this Court concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction over the Third-Party Demands by Builders, Edmund, and Cheryl against non-diverse parties pursuant to the applicable statutory and jurisprudential authority relied on by USFG.

Section 1367(b) bars certain claims by original plaintiffs against third-party defendants in diversity cases, but does not bar claims by third-party plaintiffs against third-party defendants merely because they lack an independent basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Auto Plus Insurance Agency, LLC · filed 2009-12-11(b)

Moreover, Billings’ and Auto Plus’ third-party claim does not fall within the exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction set forth in Section 1367(b). That subsection provides in relevant part that in a case originally founded on diversity jurisdiction, a federal district court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs claims against a third-party defendant unless those claims independently meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. However, that exception applies only to an original plaintiffs claims against a third-party defendant, not to a third-party plaintiffs claims against a third-party defendant.

Section 1367(b) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse third-party defendant added by a defendant in a diversity case.

Manufacturers Bank & Trust Company v. Lanesboro Sales Commission, Inc · filed 2020-10-01(b)

Under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(b), supplemental jurisdiction still exists over third-party defendants added by a defendant, as opposed to a plaintiff.

Section 1367(b) allows supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant’s state-law claim against an impleaded third party in a diversity action only if the third-party action satisfies § 1332’s diversity requirements.

Paredes v. Aramark Management Services Limited Partnership · filed 2021-10-12(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), the Court may do so only if Aramark’s action against Fresh Direct meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1367(b) allows impleaded third-party defendants to remain outside the complete-diversity analysis when they are added solely for third-party liability.

Pursell v. Hydrochem LLC. · filed 2022-08-18(b)

But ... these two entities are not considered in the context of the diversity analysis because they are added solely for the purpose of third-party liability.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought by defendants as third-party plaintiffs in diversity cases.

Brazos Presbyterian Homes, Inc. v. Thompson Hancock Witte & Associates, Inc.Case remanded to the 80th District Court of Harris County, Texas. · filed 2022-09-27(b)

But it’s well settled that the limit on supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases doesn’t apply to claims brought by defendants in their capacity as third-party plaintiffs.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over a plaintiff’s claims against a nondiverse defendant joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 when jurisdiction would conflict with § 1332.

Christopher A Salvador Construction L L C v. Axis Insurance Co · filed 2022-10-13(b)

Thus, in diversity suits the district courts have no discretion regarding the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims against non-diverse persons made parties through third-party practice, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 14, intervention, Rule 24, required joinder, Rule 19, or permissive joinder. ... The Court finds that there is no supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant’s counterclaim against a non-diverse party joined as a third-party defendant to that counterclaim.

Injective Labs Inc. v. Wang · filed 2023-05-09

In any event, a district court has supplemental jurisdiction “over a defendant’s counterclaim against non-diverse parties joined as third-party defendants to the counterclaim.” Dev. Fin. Corp. v. Alpha Hous. & Health Care, Inc., 54 F.3d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1995); see also 13D Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.2 (3d ed., April 2023 update).

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant’s third-party claim merely because the defendant and third-party defendant are not diverse; its plaintiff restriction applies to claims by the original plaintiffs.

DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-cv-1570 · filed 2023-10-12(b)

Therefore, because Defendants are not “plaintiffs” under section 1367(b) for the purposes of the Third-Party Complaint, section 1367(b) does not bar the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(b) restricts claims by original plaintiffs against Rule 14 parties in diversity cases, but does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant’s third-party claim merely because the defendant and third-party defendant share citizenship.

Martin v. Walmart Supercenter Store 2047 · filed 2023-11-16(b)

Even though both Walmart and CBRE are incorporated in Delaware, see Docket 49 at ¶ 3 (CBRE’s Answer admitting Walmart’s allegation at Docket 23 ¶ 3 that CBRE is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Texas), this Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party complaint because “‘plaintiff’ in § 1367(b) refers to the original plaintiff in the action - not to a defendant that happens also to be a counter-plaintiff, cross-plaintiff, or third-party- plaintiff,” State Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Yates, 391 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 2004).

Section 1367(b) does not require a defendant bringing a third-party claim to be diverse from the third-party defendant when the original plaintiff asserts no claim against that party.

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Prime1 Construction LLC · filed 2025-06-16(b)

Here, Section 1367(b) would prevent Wells Fargo (or another party joining or intervening as plaintiff) from circumventing the requirement of diversity and bringing a claim against a nondiverse third-party defendant. That is not the situation here. The Shahs are not the original plaintiffs. Thus, there is no requirement that they be diverse from Masizo.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims against defendants joined under Rule 20 when those claims fail the diversity jurisdiction requirements of § 1332.

Professional Medical-Surgical Supply, Inc. v. Mission Point Management Services LLC · filed 2025-11-19(b)

It is worth pointing out that Section 1367(b) prohibits a court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over defendants permissively joined under Rule 20, but does have any such prohibition over plaintiffs permissively joined—that is, it only bars a court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs who are required to be joined under Rule 19.

Section 1367 permits a defendant in a diversity case to implead a third party who shares citizenship with the plaintiff without destroying diversity.

Rediger v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2017-04-14

Further, it is well established that a defendant can implead a third party of the same citizenship as the plaintiff without destroying diversity.

Section 1367(b) prevents original plaintiffs in diversity cases from using supplemental jurisdiction to evade diversity requirements, but does not bar related third-party claims by defendants.

Grimes v. Ford Mtr Co · filed 2004-01-13(b)

The supplemental jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), states congressional intent to prevent original plaintiffs– but not defendants or third parties--from circumventing the requirements of diversity.

Section 1367(a) does not give one district court supplemental jurisdiction over a claim merely because another district court has original jurisdiction over a related case.

Emerson Power Transmission Corp. v. Roller Bearing Co. of America · filed 1996-03-18(a)

Nor does this court find any evidence that Congress, in codifying the two doctrines as “supplemental” jurisdiction under § 1367, intended to expand the doctrines of pendent jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction so as to confer federal question jurisdiction on one district court simply because another district court has indicated that it has subject matter jurisdiction over a related case or controversy.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving a nondiverse defendant added under Rule 25(c).

Paul S. Burka, and Robert A. Burka, Trustees v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 1996-06-14(b)

In light of our conclusion that the District Court properly applied Rule 25(c) to add AU as a defendant in this case, we also find that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) (1994) — which, in diversity cases, precludes supplemental jurisdiction over claims by or against non-diverse parties added under certain rules other than Rule 25 — presents no impediment to the District Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims between the Burkas and AU.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants when federal claims against them remain pending.

Jessie 701078 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-10-03(c)

Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Hares, Harris, and Beaudrou, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against them.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when only some claims are dismissed and federal claims remain.

McGill v. Koros, LLC · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

The Court’s dismissal of the claims brought by the November 5 Plaintiffs against TJL does not affect its supplemental jurisdiction with respect to any of the state law claims. The Court will therefore retain jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims intertwined with a surviving federal claim so both can be resolved in federal court.

Doe v. Smith · filed 2005-11-21(c)(3)

Doe presented several claims under state law; the district court relinquished supplemental jurisdiction without deciding whether any of these theories is tenable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Success on one of the state-law theories would prevent Smith from using the defense under § 2511(2)(d). Because the state and federal issues are intertwined, both should be resolved in federal court.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain jurisdiction over related state-law claims when federal claims survive a motion to dismiss.

Pisello v. Town of Brookhaven · filed 1996-07-10

While the courts will generally dismiss state law claims where the federal claims are dismissed, in cases such as this, where the trial court has denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss some of the federal claims, the court will retain jurisdiction over the related state law claims. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction is denied.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims would predominate over the federal claims.

James Reed, Jr. v. Teledyne Systems Company, Inc. · filed 1996-08-14(c)(2)

A recent Ninth Circuit decision outlining the reasons for which a district court may properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), also lists the predominance of the state claims as an appropriate reason. ... First, proving the state claims would require not only the evidence for the Title VII claim, but also substantial additional evidence regarding the nature of Reed's employment contract and the personnel policies and practices of Teledyne. As a result, the state claims would predominate. Therefore, the district court was correct in refusing to permit an amendment.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims remain pending.

Carroll v. Village of Shelton · filed 1996-12-19(c)(3)

However, as plaintiffs claims for violation of her federal equal protection rights have not been dismissed, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and her state law claims will not be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after the federal claims drop out.

In Re Grain Land Coop · filed 1997-10-01(a)

Since the remaining claims here are “so related,” the Court finds that it is appropriate to retain jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits a related state claim to proceed when the court retains original jurisdiction over other claims, even though some federal claims have been dismissed.

Donohue v. Teamsters Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training & Vacation & Sick Leave Trust Funds · filed 1998-07-16(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides the district court with supplemental jurisdiction over related claims provided the district court has original jurisdiction over a claim. Although plaintiffs RICO and ERISA claims as to the Welfare, Pension, Job Training and Vacation and Sick Leave Funds hereby are dismissed without prejudice, this Court maintains original jurisdiction over plaintiffs ERISA claims as to the Annuity Fund, COBRA claim, and Consent Judgment claim, thereby permitting plaintiffs State claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain pendent state-law claims when the federal claims remain before it.

J & J Manufacturing, Inc. v. Logan · filed 1998-09-18(a)

Finally, since this Court continues to have jurisdiction over Plaintiff J & J’s patent and trademark related claims, it should not dismiss the remaining, pendent claims for wrongful appropriation, fraud, and conversion.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental state-law claims when the federal claims remain pending.

Meehan v. Patchogue-Medford School District · filed 1998-12-02

Similarly, as the federal claims have not been dismissed, the Court declines to dismiss the supplemental state claims alleging a violation of the New York State Executive Law.

Section 1367 permits a district court with a federal basis for jurisdiction to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, subject to discretionary considerations of fairness, federal policy, comity, and judicial economy.

Semple v. City of Moundsville · filed 1999-10-05

A district court may exercise its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over state law claims made in the case through supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 when there is a federal basis for jurisdiction. ... The district court exercises its discretion by considering factors that include: “convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy.” ... In light of these factors, we are of opinion that the district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367 permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims proceed.

Shipp v. McMahon · filed 2000-01-31

Because we are of the view that Shipp’s Equal Protection claims should be allowed to proceed, we affirm the district court’s decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Shipp’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissing pendent state law claims when federal claims remain.

Jackson v. Johnson · filed 2000-09-13(c)(3)

All of the defendants urge dismissal of plaintiff’s pendent state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, since all of the plaintiffs federal claims have not been dismissed, defendants' argument is rejected.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a related state-law claim when the federal claim remains triable.

Glenview Construction, Inc. v. Bucci · filed 2001-09-19(c)(3)

The two claims are therefore inextricably intertwined. Thus, we will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When a federal constitutional claim remains viable, supplemental state law claims dismissed after rejection of the federal claims may be retained in district court.

Audio Odyssey, Ltd. v. Brenton First National Bank · filed 2002-04-10(c)

While such value may not have been substantial, Audio Odyssey is nevertheless entitled to the consideration of damages, even if nominal (and the retention of its supplemental state law claims in the district court) for the constitutional violation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental state law claims while related matters remain pending.

Briggs v. New York State Department of Transportation · filed 2002-11-12(c)(3)

At this stage, with related matters still pending, the state law claims will not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim survives.

Gill v. Smith · filed 2003-07-11(c)(3)

Since the Court disagrees with Magistrate Judge DiBianco’s conclusion with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain jurisdiction over related state law claims.

De Mino v. Achenbaum · filed 2003-11-21

De Mino has not shown that the district court erred in retaining jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367 allows supplemental state law claims to proceed when the federal claim supporting them is reinstated.

Sheffield v. Twaddle · filed 2005-08-16

As we reverse the dismissal of the retaliation claim, we likewise reverse the dismissal of the supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissing supplemental state law claims because the federal claims have been dismissed when those federal claims remain pending.

Carrier Corp. v. Piper · filed 2006-09-30(c)(3)

Similarly, Quanex asserts that “in the event that the Court finds 12(b)(6) dismissal of Carrier’s CERCLA causes of action appropriate, Carrier’s state law causes of action should be dismissed as well.” (Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 19, at 17-18.)(applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to argue that once the CERCLA causes of action are dismissed, there is no justification for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Carrier’s state law claims). Again, this Court has denied Quanex’s motion with respect to the CERCLA causes of action. Accordingly, Quanex’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to the state law causes of action, Counts 4 through 8, is DENIED.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissing a surviving state claim because the federal claims were dismissed when at least one federal claim survives summary judgment.

Craig v. M & O AGENCIES, INC. · filed 2007-08-09(c)(3)

Because we hold that at least one of Craig’s federal claims survives summary judgment, we reverse the dismissal of her surviving state claim as well.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state law claims after the federal claims fail when judicial efficiency and comity support doing so.

Guerrero v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding · filed 2010-10-20(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Guerreros’s state law claims rather than remanding to state court. The district court had jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the complaint raised numerous federal law issues, and had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the related state law issues, which arose from the same transaction and occurrence as the federal law issues. It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court, after taking into account concerns of judicial efficiency and comity, to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and decide their merit.

When a federal claim is reinstated, the district court should reconsider whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Elcock v. Whitecotton · filed 2011-08-02(c)

The district court should also reconsider whether to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims survive dismissal.

Cooper v. Western & Southern Financial Group, Inc. · filed 2012-03-14

Because the Court has determined not to dismiss plaintiffs’ FHA claims, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is appropriate.

Section 1367 allows the district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims survive summary judgment.

Latiolais v. Griffith · filed 2012-08-08

However, as the district court properly denied summary judgment on the 1983 claims, the argument regarding pendent jurisdiction fails because the district court still has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissing a supplemental state-law claim when the federal claims remain pending.

Walton v. Pereira · filed 2014-02-06(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if — (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” ... Because this Court has denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Ms. Walton’s FDCPA claims in Counts I and II of her Complaint, this Court therefore also denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Ms. Walton’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Section 1367(c) does not warrant dismissing supplemental state law claims on the ground that federal claims were dismissed when those federal claims survive.

Smith v. Town of Hempstead · filed 2014-05-15(c)

Given the denial of the Town’s motion to dismiss Smith’s federal claims, the Court denies the request to dismiss the supplemental state law claims under § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Fallay v. City of San Francisco · filed 2015-03-06(a)

Because the federal claims against the Federal and City Defendants remain at issue in this litigation, the district court retains jurisdiction over the state law claims against these defendants.

When federal claims are remanded for further proceedings, dismissal of the related state law claims under § 1367(c)(3) may also be vacated and remanded.

Dennis Ryan, Jr. v. Officer Mary Armstrong · filed 2017-03-07(c)(3)

Since we are remanding some of the trustee's federal claims for further proceedings, we also vacate the dismissal of the trustee's state law claims and remand them to the district court.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not call for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claim survives a motion to dismiss.

Wilson v. On the Rise Enters., LLC · filed 2018-03-31(c)(3)

Since dismissal of the plaintiff's FLSA claim is denied, the Court retains jurisdiction over the plaintiff's pendant D.C. law claims.

Section 1367 permits retention of state law claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a surviving federal claim.

Kornreich v. Bedford Central School District · filed 2019-12-03(a), (c)(3)

As discussed above, plaintiffs have alleged a plausible Section 1983 claim for violation of the IDEA. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ Section 1983 and state law claims all arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, as required for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. As such, the Court declines to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits continued supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant whose federal claim is dismissed when those claims form part of the same case or controversy as a surviving federal claim against another defendant.

CORRITORE v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. · filed 2020-01-28(a), (c)(3)

This argument is misplaced inasmuch as the Court is permitting the §1983 claim against Peterson to proceed forward and, as indicated above, Plaintiff will be permitted an opportunity to replead her claim against Mealy. Even if Plaintiff does not attempt to restate her §1983 claim against Mealy, however, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Mealy and Wexford, as those claims are “so related to” Plaintiff's ... surviving Eighth Amendment claim “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article II of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1367 permits the court to let accompanying state law claims proceed past initial screening when a viable federal claim remains, leaving their validity for later motions.

Walker v. Nicholas · filed 2020-06-23

If there are no facially plausible federal law claims against any of the named defendants, then the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. If viable federal law claims remain, then the validity of any accompanying state law claims may be appropriately addressed through a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. ... The case shall proceed against Lieutenant Nicholas in his individual capacity on Mr. Walker’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and on his state law assault and battery claim for damages.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain state law claims when the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction remain pending.

Simons v. Yale University · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

As to Defendants’ second argument, as long as the federal claims in this case remain, the Court declines to dismiss Dr. Simons’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not require a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims against other parties survive.

Thomas v. Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

Because Thomas’s federal claims against other parties survive, the Court has no obligation to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s state law 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, and the court may retain those claims when federal claims survive.

DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS THIS MEMBER CASE - LEAD CASE IS NOW CIVIL NO. 19-1397(GMM) · filed 2021-10-29(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear state law claims when, and if, the federal court has original jurisdiction in the action and the claims “form part of the same case or controversy.” ... Because the Court does not dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ request to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the claims made under Puerto Rico law.

Section 1367 permits accompanying state law claims to proceed when a viable federal claim remains, with their validity addressed later through ordinary motions.

Cosby v. Bucior · filed 2021-11-30

If there are no facially plausible federal law claims against the named defendant, then the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On the other hand, if there are any viable federal law claims that remain, then the validity of any accompanying state law claims against the defendant may be appropriately addressed in the usual course by way of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. ... The case will proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect Cosby from the assault by Whittington as well as the supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when a federal claim against the same defendant remains pending.

Bigelow 707469 v. Sebly · filed 2022-02-24(c)

Because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Medical Supervisor Unknown Party #3, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim against Defendant.

A court may decline to address supplemental state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Debbs v. Valley Convalscent Hospital · filed 2022-03-21(a)

In the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to address any purported state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, but a court may decline to screen them when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Williams v. The People of the State of California · filed 2022-06-28(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. ... As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to screen Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to defer considering state-law claims while the plaintiff has yet to state a viable federal claim.

Williams v. Desert Palace LLC · filed 2022-08-19(a)

Since Williams must successfully state a federal claim to proceed with his case, this Court will not screen his potential state court claims at this time.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Alo v. Fresno City College · filed 2022-11-03(a)

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert state law claims, the Court declines to screen them in the absence of a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. ... Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

A court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims survive a motion to dismiss.

RUDOLPH v. WELLPATH · filed 2023-03-17(c)(3)

As discussed infra, the Court finds that Rudolph has alleged sufficient facts to allege Eighth Amendment violations against Defendants. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss and continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Rudolph’s state law professional negligence claims in Count III of the amended complaint.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims against the same defendants remain pending.

Delgado 111398 v. Gust · filed 2023-03-24(c)

Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Gust, Mitchell, and Unknown Parties #1–3, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against these Defendants.

The court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because federal claims remained pending.

Snowden v. Southerton · filed 2023-05-23(a), (c)(3)

Here, however, because plaintiff’s race discrimination claim under Title VII and her Monell claim with respect to failing to supervise nurses survive, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims while the federal claims remain pending.

FemHealth USA, Inc. v. Williams · filed 2023-08-23(a)

Because the court has not dismissed the federal claims, Hurley’s motion to dismiss the state law claims will be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (providing that the district court has supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to the claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution”).

Section 1367 permits a court to leave state-law claims unaddressed when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Hendrix v. City of Madera · filed 2023-08-30(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first state a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court will not screen Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims when an original-jurisdiction federal claim remains viable.

Cela v. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)

This Court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cela’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. “A district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [a pendent state law claim] if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Williams v. N.Y.C. Health & Mental Hygiene, 299 F. Supp. 3d 418, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Here, because Cela has plausibly alleged a pregnancy discrimination claim in violation of Title VII, this Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state and city claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when related federal claims remain pending.

Causey 108113 v. Ouellette · filed 2023-10-18(c)

Here, because Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants remain pending, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants.

State law claims cannot proceed under supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claim can proceed, but they may be included in an amended complaint that adequately states both federal and state law claims.

Merkley v. Idaho Department of Corrections · filed 2023-12-21

Because he has stated no federal claim upon which he can proceed, he cannot proceed on any state law claim, but he may include these claims in an amended complaint if he has adequate grounds for both federal and state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to keep state-law claims when federal claims remain pending against another defendant, even though the federal claims against the defendants facing the state-law claims have been dismissed.

Posey v. Barnette · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

Though no federal claims remain against Defendants, Posey’s claims against non-moving Defendant Jennah Pritchard are still pending. Therefore, the Court will not remand Posey’s state-law claims against Defendants at this time.

Section 1367(a) authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when plausible federal claims remain in the case.

Residents and Occupants of Green Mountain Mobile Manor v. Town of Fair Haven, Vermont · filed 2024-05-20(a)

Although Defendants are correct that where a federal court dismisses the federal-law causes of action, it may in its discretion decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law causes of action, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006), the Court has determined that Plaintiff has alleged plausible federal claims. Therefore, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is authorized.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain after dismissal motions are decided.

Hughes v. Bouchon Properties LLC · filed 2024-05-30

After considering the motion to dismiss the section 1982 and FHA claims, some federal claims remain. Therefore, the defendants’ request that this Court refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is DENIED. The Court will retain jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when a federal claim remains pending.

Howard 610483 v. Coleman · filed 2024-07-23(c)

Because Plaintiff continues to have pending a federal claim against Defendant Coleman, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim against Defendant Coleman.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when federal claims proceed.

Kennedy v. White County, Arkansas · filed 2024-10-24(a)

Finally, because some of Kennedy’s federal claims go forward, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kennedy’s state law claims related to excessive force and deliberate indifference.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law defamation claim when the asserted federal claims provide no private right of action.

Goodin v. Laporte · filed 2024-11-26(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ other federal claims (i.e., the Title 18 claims) provide for no private right of action, there is no supplemental jurisdiction for any state law defamation claims.

A court may defer screening related state law claims under § 1367(a) until the plaintiff states a viable federal claim.

Skinner v. Reed · filed 2025-05-05(a)

Since Plaintiff must successfully state a federal claim to proceed with his case, this Court will not screen his potential state court claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims are dismissed; a surviving federal claim did not support dismissing the state-law claims here.

Bhandari v. Outagamie County · filed 2025-07-01(c)(3)

Consistent with the general rule that when federal claims drop out of a case, federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Carlsbad Tech. Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009), Defendants sought dismissal of those claims without prejudice upon their motion for summary judgment being granted on the federal claims. Since one of the Estate’s federal claims survives, Defendants’ motion as to the state law claims is denied.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when federal claims against other defendants remain.

WHITE · filed 2025-10-29

Despite dismissing Plaintiff's FCRA claim, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over her NJCFA ciaim against HCA, NJ. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 et seg., because Plaintiff maintains a FCRA claim against the credit bureaus and a Fair Debt Collection Act claim against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. and Transworld Systems, Inc, See, é.2., Nelson v. Temple Univ., 920 F. Supp. 633, 638 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (explaining that district courts retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where federal claims against another defendant remain).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when the federal claim remains, the court may retain jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Yocum · filed 2026-03-11(c)(3)

But as the court has not dismissed Ms. Yocum’s FDCPA claim, over which it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a state-law claim after the federal claims are resolved when the parties’ substantial investment in litigating it warrants doing so.

RIGGS · filed 2026-03-31(c)

Given that the City’s request is unopposed, and the resources the parties have expended presenting and defending these claims is substantial, the Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction here is warranted.

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims but does not make an otherwise time-barred claim valid.

Scarborough v. Brown Group, Inc. · filed 1997-03-11

Federal courts are granted supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section 1367, however, is only a grant of jurisdiction over otherwise valid claims.”

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction over otherwise valid claims but does not permit a time-barred state law claim merely because a related federal claim is before the court.

Burnett v. Tyco Corp. · filed 1996-07-19

Such a statement ignores the fact that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is only a grant of jurisdiction over otherwise valid claims; it does not “entitle” a plaintiff to bring a time-barred state law claim in federal court merely because she also has a federal claim arising out of the same facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law defamation and emotional-distress claims that could be joined with federal claims.

Eigabri v. Lekas · filed 1996-08-22(a)

He certainly could have included his defamation and emotional distress claims in his federal court action. He could have done so by simply utilizing the device of supplemental jurisdiction, permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are directly related to a federal claim.

Davis v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. · filed 1997-04-15(a)

The Court also chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over plaintiff’s pending state law claims since these state law claims are directly related to the federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when substantial state-law claims do not predominate over the plaintiff’s central federal claim.

Doe v. Hartz · filed 1997-06-23(c)(2)

The court concludes, in its discretion, that it need not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims on the ground that they predominate over the federal claim.

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction over otherwise valid claims but does not permit a plaintiff to bring a time-barred state law claim merely because it arises from the same facts as a federal claim.

Crittendon v. American National Insurance · filed 1997-06-25

Although it not disputed that the allegations that form the basis for Plaintiffs federal and state law claims against Defendants derive from a common nucleus of fact, “28 U.S.C. § 1367 is only a grant of jurisdiction over otherwise valid claims; it does not ‘entitle’ a plaintiff to bring a time-barred state law claim in federal court merely because she also has a federal claims arising out of the same facts.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, including claims by additional plaintiffs, when they are sufficiently related to a remaining federal claim.

DuFour-Dowell v. Cogger · filed 1997-06-27(a)

The state law claims are sufficiently related to the excessive force claim to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to hear related state-law claims arising from the same circumstances as a federal claim.

Bradley v. Georgia Institute of Technology · filed 1997-08-22(a)

Further, under its pendent jurisdiction, the federal court could have addressed a violation of due process claim under Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. I, the Georgia Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq., or state contract law. ... In this case, the due process issue arose from the same circumstances and involved the same subject matter as that presented in Bradley’s federal case, i.e., her dismissal and the question of whether it was based on race or the negative citations in her employment records.

Section 1367(c) permits remand of pendent state law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1998-06-26(c)

In light of this conclusion, and considering the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, we must conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in correspondingly remanding the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed.

Hardin v. Porter · filed 1998-09-09

We also affirm the dismissal without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, of the supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are resolved.

Geiger v. City of Oppelo · filed 1998-09-23

We construe the court&s order to have dismissed the state claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and affirm that ruling as well.

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to hear nonfederal claims that are intertwined with claims within its original jurisdiction.

Popular Democratic Party v. Com. of Puerto Rico · filed 1998-10-13(a)

The second, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action of the complaint do not raise any federal questions. However, because of their very nature, these causes of action are inextricably intertwined with the first and fifth causes of action. ... Having taken all those factors into account, this Court finds that it is fair and efficient to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the second, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action.

Section 1367 allows a court to dismiss unspecified supplemental state law claims with leave to replead when many federal claims have been dismissed.

Sims v. Kernan · filed 1998-12-04

The doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, which has been codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides that, unless otherwise provided by statute, federal courts “have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action ... that they form part of the same case or controversy.” Mr. Sims does not assert what state law claims he wishes to proceed on and because so many of Mr. Sims’s federal claims have been dismissed, the court will dismiss his pendent jurisdiction claims, with leave to Mr. Sims to replead them with more specificity.

Section 1367 permits a court with federal statutory jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Sunrise Development, Inc. v. Town of Huntington · filed 1999-02-03

Where a court has subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal statute, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the plaintiffs have adequately alleged federal claims.

Gibbs-Alfano v. Ossining Boat & Canoe Club, Inc. · filed 1999-05-03(a)

However, since plaintiffs have adequately alleged Federal claims, pendent jurisdiction over the related State Law claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants when the federal claim against them survives dismissal.

Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Illinois Range, Inc. · filed 1999-05-05

Ill and IV are state law claims for illegal corporate distributions and fraudulent conveyance against the Individual Defendants over which the Court had supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In that the Court is not dismissing the federal ERISA claim against the individual defendants, the Court still has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the individual defendants.

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

Shabazz v. Cole · filed 1999-06-25(a)

In the event this court has federal question jurisdiction under one of Shabazz’ causes of action, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) operates to confer supplemental jurisdiction to hear “state-law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts.”

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims against some defendants when the federal claim remains central and judicial economy favors retaining the case.

Intercity Maintenance Co. v. Local 254 Service Employees International Union · filed 1999-07-29(c)

This Court can identify no compelling reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims advanced by plaintiff.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an initially unpleaded state-law claim if the claim is properly developed in the case; the court cannot decide a claim excluded from the pretrial proceedings when doing so prejudices the defendant.

Pinkley Inc v. City of Frederick MD · filed 1999-08-31(a)

As to Count Three of the complaint, the judgment against the City under state law for conversion, the district court, while it may have had at the beginning of the case the right to assert its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) if properly developed, even though not initially claimed in the complaint, in view of the agreed- upon pre-trial order which removed that issue from the case, even if present; the post-trial memorandum of the plaintiff; the positions the parties took during this proceeding in the district court; and the preju- dice to the defendant which is apparent from the record; we are of opinion the district court abused its discretion in considering the mer- its of this supplemental or pendent claim under state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in its discretion, considering convenience, fairness, federal policy, comity, and judicial economy.

Charles Lee Semple, Jr. v. The City Of Moundsville · filed 1999-10-05

A district court may exercise its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over state law claims made in the case through supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 when there is a federal basis for jurisdiction. See Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court exercises its discretion by considering factors that include: "convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy." See Shanaghan, 58 F.3d at 110. In light of these factors, we are of opinion that the district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Muhammad v. City of Tuskegee · filed 1999-10-19(c)(2)

Further, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs state law claims predominate over her lone federal claim of which the court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, following the rationale set forth in Reneau, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim arising from the same facts as a federal claim when no subsection (c) factor warrants declining jurisdiction.

Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate & Barrel Ltd. · filed 2000-05-16(a), (c)

In this case, supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois claim is appropriate. Both the federal claim, a violation of the Lanham Act, and the state claim, a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, specifically, Defendant’s alleged use of Plaintiffs trademark on Defendant’s Internet website, as Defendant’s domain name, and on Defendant’s labels of goods. Furthermore, there are no factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) that would warrant this Court to decline jurisdiction over the state claim.

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

Paper, Allied, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 5-508 v. Slurry Explosive Corp. · filed 2000-07-28(a)

The same set of facts forms the basis for both the federal breach of contract claim and the state law misrepresentation claim. In fact, the misrepresentation claim is based on alleged fraud in the formation of the contract. Accordingly, this court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over defendant’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to consider supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim; the claim’s state-law character alone does not require dismissal.

Raymond Proffitt Foundation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2000-08-22

Although other bases for dismissal of this count may exist, I will deny defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 11 as defendants’ sole basis for dismissal is that this is a state claim, ignoring the possibility that I may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain related state law claims after disposing of the federal claims.

Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Department · filed 2000-09-06(c)

Although the district court could have declined to exercise jurisdiction over those claims, it was not required to do so.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when a valid federal claim remains.

Souffront v. Alvarado · filed 2000-09-14(a)

We have found that Plaintiff has asserted a valid section 1983 claim against Defendants for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his related state law claims.

Section 1367 extends supplemental jurisdiction to a related state-law claim for contractual attorneys’ fees in a case arising under federal law.

Rissman, Arnold R. v. Glick, Robert D. · filed 2000-10-02(a)

Jurisdiction in this case depends on 28 U.S.C. sec.1331, because one of Arnold’s claims arose under the federal securities laws, and related state-law claims (such as a demand for attorneys’ fees under para.21) are within the supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 extends supplemental jurisdiction to a related state-law claim for contractual attorneys’ fees when the case includes a federal securities-law claim.

Rissman v. Owen Randall Rissman and Robert Dunn Glick · filed 2000-10-02

Jurisdiction in this case depends on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because one of Arnold’s claims arose under the federal securities laws, and related state-law claims (such as a demand for attorneys’ fees under ¶ 21) are within the supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law unfair competition claim when a federal Lanham Act claim remains.

GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Idea Nuova, Inc. · filed 2000-12-18

Because Idea Nuova states a claim under the Lanham Act, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its related unfair competition claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state discrimination claim arising from the same facts as a federal discrimination claim.

McCall v. City of Danbury, No. Cv99 0334254s (Jan. 11, 2001) · filed 2001-01-11(a)

Moreover, McCall could certainly have brought his state discrimination as part of his federal action, and it is likely the federal court would have entertained it since the same facts were involved and the theory of liability is substantially, if not entirely, identical. Under the principles of United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715 (1966) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 , the federal court had jurisdiction over the state claim and likely would have exercised it.

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

Tomaiolo v. Transamerica Corp. · filed 2001-02-20(a)

In this instance, all of plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact, plaintiffs have already filed six amended complaints, discovery has closed, and the summary judgment record is complete. Accordingly, this Court concludes that exercising supplemental jurisdiction furthers the interests of judicial economy and fairness and is appropriate in this case.

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

Daniel v. Safir · filed 2001-02-23(a)

A district court having original jurisdiction also has pendent, or 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that arise from the same factual predicate as claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction and would ordinarily be tried together.

Pryzbowksi v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2001-03-27(a)

Under these circumstances, it would be expected that all of Pryzbowski's claims against the defendants would be combined in one judicial proceeding. Therefore, the District Court had the authority for its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Medemerge and the physician defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant facing no federal claim when those claims arise from and are interrelated with remaining federal claims against other defendants.

Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services · filed 2001-06-25(a)

Clearly, the.Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state claims asserted against Moffitt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as those claims arise from and are interrelated with the remaining federal claims asserted against the other defendants.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims transactionally related to claims within its original jurisdiction.

Perez v. City of Escondido · filed 2001-08-06(a)

A federal court properly exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims transactionally related to federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because the state law claims which Plaintiffs seek to add are transactionally related to those brought in the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over such causes of action.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to remand remaining state-law claims after the potentially federal claims have been abandoned.

Brawn v. Coleman · filed 2001-08-30(c)

Once this claim is abandoned, this Court has the discretion to remand the remaining claims—all of which arise under state law—to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Thus, to the extent the plaintiffs’ waived claims created a basis for removal, I exercise my discretion in favor of remand.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed.

Sulsona v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2002-03-21

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and dismisses Ruiz Sulso-na’s federal claims with prejudice. The Court dismisses Ruiz-Sulsona’s state law claims without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(d) gives a plaintiff thirty days after dismissal of supplemental state law claims to file them in state court.

Travis v. Miller · filed 2002-09-27(d)

Travis’ State law claims are remanded to the State court and must be filed within thirty days of the date of this order of dismissal.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Bell Consumers Inc. v. Lay · filed 2003-02-19(c)

The district court also properly exercised its discretion to remand the state law claims to state court.

Section 1367 cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction to review a state commission’s contract interpretation or enjoin its order on state law grounds when Pennhurst bars that relief.

Michigan Bell Telephone Company v. Mcimetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. · filed 2003-03-10

Thus, Pennhurst would under our precedent preclude the district court from using supplemental jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the Commission's interpretation of the agreement under state contract law and enjoin enforcement of the Commission's order on any state law grounds.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims sufficiently related to a federal claim, including claims arising from the same damage in transit.

Linc Equipment Services, Inc. v. Signal Medical Services, Inc. · filed 2003-03-11(a)

Because the damage to the mri likely occurred during transit, the state-law claims are sufficiently related to the federal-law theory that they come within the supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims involving the same facts as federal claims when they present no difficult issues of state law.

Farrar v. Yamin · filed 2003-04-14(a)

Because these claims involve the same set of facts as Farrar’s federal claims and involve no difficult issues of state law, we exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and address each in turn below.

Section 1367 permits a federal court with original jurisdiction over valid federal claims to hear related local causes of action.

Herrera v. Davila · filed 2003-07-17

Plaintiffs having asserted valid claims as to which there is original federal jurisdiction defendants’ request that these be dismissed is DENIED. The court will entertain all related local causes of action asserted by plaintiffs as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same facts and circumstances as claims within the court’s original federal jurisdiction, when sovereign immunity does not bar the claim.

Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County · filed 2003-09-10(a)

Because the School District does not benefit from sovereign immunity, the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), if a federal court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that “are so related to the 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.” Here, the same facts and circumstances that form the basis for Savage’s claims under the ADA and RA support her ACRA claim. Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction is proper because the School District does not have sovereign immunity and the district court has jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of state-law claims after the federal claim is dismissed.

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co. · filed 2003-10-06(c)(3)

We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ground that Lamps Plus's copyright was invalid and the order remanding the state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).