28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a court to remand remaining state law claims when the interests of justice favor their resolution by a state court familiar with state law.

Lowe v. Unifi, Inc. · filed 2003-10-28(c)

Plaintiffs only remaining claims are against Defendant Stovall individually for battery, IIED, and NIED. Claims such as these are routinely tried in the state courts and traditionally present substantive questions exclusive to state law. It is in the interests of justice that such claims be decided by the court most familiar with North Carolina state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Therefore, the court will remand these remaining claims against Defendant Stovall to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Guilford County, North Carolina.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to hear state law assault and battery claims arising from the same alleged force as a federal civil rights claim.

Wilson v. VanNatta · filed 2003-10-30(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which codified the pendent jurisdiction doctrine, federal courts, unless otherwise provided by statute, “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.” The court will permit Mr. Wilson to pursue his state law tort claims against these defendants to the éxtent that he meets the procedural prerequisites established by state statute to bring such claims against them.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the same facts as the federal claims.

Barrett v. Coplan · filed 2003-11-20(a)

Although she does not discuss her state law claims, presuming that they are based on the same facts as the federal claims, I will exercise the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court and allow Barrett's state law claims to proceed at this time.

Section 1367 gives a bankruptcy court supplemental jurisdiction over a state law indemnification claim that forms part of the same Article III case or controversy as a trustee’s lien avoidance claim, even if bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334 is absent.

Pierce v. Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. (In Re Lockridge) · filed 2003-12-15(a)

Jurisdiction therefore exists here under § 1367, even if it did not exist under § 1334.

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

Borzych v. Frank · filed 2004-10-14(a)

Because these claims arise from the same facts governing plaintiffs federal claims, supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to remand claims supported only by supplemental jurisdiction when they substantially predominate over the claims supporting federal jurisdiction.

Pinnoak Resources, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's · filed 2005-01-13(c)(2)

Section 1367(c)(2) of Title 28 of the United States Code allows the district court in its discretion to remand a claim supported only by supplemental jurisdiction if that claim substantially predominates over the claim upon which federal jurisdiction is based.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same operative facts as a federal claim, including when the action is removed.

B & B Enterprises of Wilson County, LLC v. City of Lebanon · filed 2006-03-23(a)

Moreover, state law claims that are related to a federal-question claim may also be removed under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... As it is clear that the same set of operative facts gave rise to both the state and federal claims in this case, removal of the entire case was appropriate, and this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over both the state and federal claims asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to retain a related state-law claim, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sellars v. City Of Gary · filed 2006-07-07(a)

Pendent jurisdiction is discretionary and governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). "[A] district court should consider and weigh the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims." ... Judicial economy and convenience both support the district court's decision to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for dismissal of supplemental state-law claims if the district court concludes that it lacks independent jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Christophe v. Morris · filed 2006-08-11(c)(3)

Although the district court declined to give its reasons for not addressing them, Christophe’s state law claims need not be addressed here because if the district court, on remand, concludes that it lacks jurisdiction for a separate, independent reason, the state law claims should also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims closely related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction, even after that claim is dismissed.

Integrative Nutrition, Inc. v. Academy of Healing Nutrition · filed 2007-01-30(a)

However, having assumed jurisdiction over the claim, that claim is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. ... The Court will, however, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... While the remaining claims are not preempted, they raise issues — particularly with respect to the scope of damages— that are closely related to the preempted claim and warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants facing no federal claim when those claims are intimately related to and substantially share facts with federal claims against other defendants.

Fraternity Fund Ltd. v. Beacon Hill Asset Management, LLC · filed 2007-03-27(a)

While plaintiffs do not assert federal claims against these defendants, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the aiding and abetting claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as they are intimately related to and involve substantially the same facts as the federal securities fraud claims against the Beacon Hill Defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when federal claims remain in the action, even if federal claims against some defendants have been dismissed.

Energytec, Inc. v. Proctor · filed 2007-04-30(a)

Defendants Petito, Seligsohn, and Mr. Vula have moved to dismiss Energytee’s claim for interference with economic relations against them, but their motion focuses only on the court’s supplemental jurisdiction after any federal claims have been dismissed. Because Defendants have not made any additional arguments, and the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, their motion to dismiss the interference with economic relations claim is denied.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims that do not independently fall within federal jurisdiction.

Huisjack v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. · filed 2007-06-20

Finally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Counts One, Two, Three, Six and Seven in so far as they relate only to Plaintiffs’ state law claims arising out of the denial of benefits under the STD plan.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law retaliation claim arising from short-term disability benefits when a related claim concerning long-term benefits proceeds under federal law.

Huisjack v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. · filed 2007-07-02

Thus, this Court also finds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 it retains supplemental jurisdiction over Count Four in so far as its relate solely to Plaintiffs state law retaliation claims arising out of the denial of benefits under the STD plan.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to adjudicate a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim, so that claim may count as one that could have been brought in the federal action for res judicata purposes.

Ex Parte Beck · filed 2007-10-05(a)

The claim also could have been adjudicated in either of the actions Beck brought in the federal district court pursuant to the doctrine of supplemental or pendent jurisdiction outlined in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), and codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that shares sufficient operative facts with a federal claim.

Fisher v. Lynch · filed 2008-01-22(a)

Because plaintiffs defamation claim is intertwined with the conduct of other defendants underlying his Section 1983 claim, the two claims share a sufficient set of operative facts under Section 1367(a) such that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state issues related to federal issues within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami, Fla. · filed 2008-06-02(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to review the state issues because they are related to the federal issues for which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim closely aligned with the federal questions and arising from the same facts.

Qwest Corp. v. Elephant Butte Irrigation District · filed 2008-08-26(a)

Lastly, the Court chooses to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim because that claim is closely aligned with the federal questions and arises out of ... the same set of facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law malpractice claims against individual physicians alongside a federal EMTALA claim.

Hylton v. New York Methodist Hospital · filed 2009-02-16(a)

Accordingly, this Court maintains broad discretion to exert supplemental jurisdiction over relevant State law malpractice claims, including claims as against Akkapeddi, in connection with the proper adjudication of Plaintiffs federal EMTALA claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to remand a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claims if the plaintiff does not amend the complaint.

Sarkisyan v. CIGNA Healthcare of California, Inc. · filed 2009-04-16(c)

Should Plaintiffs fail to amend their complaint by that date, the Court will remand their emotional distress claim to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same facts and evidence as federal claims, even when no federal claim survives summary judgment.

Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc. · filed 2009-06-30(a)

Although plaintiff has no federal claim that survives summary judgment, her claims under the NYCHRL arise from the same facts and rely on the same evidence as her federal claims, and as a result, this Court retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are so related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Levi Strauss & Co. v. TOYO ENTERPRISE CO., LTD. · filed 2009-10-19(a)

Furthermore, because Plaintiffs state law claims “are so related to [the] claims” within the Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court may also properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to related state-law claims against additional parties when the court has original jurisdiction over joined copyright and unfair-competition claims.

HAYDELL INDUSTRIES, LLC v. Petrucci · filed 2010-03-10(a)

Having been pointed to no contradictory authority, and not finding any clearly contradictory by independent research, the undersigned finds the court has subject matter jurisdiction over all of the claims and parties in this matter through application of 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in a removed case, it may dismiss them, but remand to state court is the preferred practice.

Holmes v. BACK DOCTORS, LTD. · filed 2010-03-12

Generally when a court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in a case that has been removed from state court, it is within the court's discretion to dismiss the state-law claims, but the preferred practice is to remand the state-law claims to the state court from which those claims were removed.

When federal claims are reinstated, state-law claims dismissed under § 1367(c)(3) must be reinstated as well.

Briner v. City of Ontario · filed 2010-03-26(c)(3)

The district court declined jurisdiction over the state law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which says: “The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if. . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, in which we reinstated almost all of the federal claims, we must reinstate the state law claims as well.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain related state law claims despite dismissal of federal claims, including when litigating in two courts would burden the parties.

Degirmenci v. Sapphire-Fort Lauderdale, Lllp · filed 2010-04-20(c)

Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims, where the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, but is not required to dismiss, the case. ... Rather than having the parties litigate the issues in two courts, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a loose factual connection links it to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Poulin v. the Thomas Agency · filed 2010-04-27(a)

The Court finds that the loose factual connection between these two claims is sufficient to allow the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III. Moreover, convenience and judicial economy weigh in favor of having these counts litigated in the same court. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion and invoke supplemental jurisdiction over Count III pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law breach of contract claim when a federal Title VII claim survives dismissal.

Tucker v. Howard University Hospital · filed 2011-01-07(a)

However, having denied Howard’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title VII claims, the Court shall retain supplementary jurisdiction over their related breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims transactionally related to a federal claim, including claims against properly joined new parties.

Robinson v. Salazar · filed 2012-01-18(a)

As long as the complaint sets forth a claim “arising under” federal law, the district court may (discretionary) adjudicate state law claims that are related transactionally to the federal claim. This includes claims both against original parties and any properly-joined new parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Here, the CEQA claim is not related transactionally to the Indians’ claim to ownership or possession of the property.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are interrelated with a federal claim through the same underlying conduct.

Williams v. City of Marston · filed 2012-03-12(a)

The court finds that no reason to reject supplemental jurisdiction exists, and that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims. These claims are interrelated, and it would be a waste of time, money, and judicial resources to require plaintiff to bring these claims in a separate, state court action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims against defendants even when the remaining viable federal claims are against other defendants, if the claims arise from the same facts.

Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre · filed 2012-03-19(a)

The College Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of supplemental jurisdiction will be denied. There are still viable federal claims against other Defendants in the case that create original jurisdiction, and the state law tort claims against the College Defendants are related to the federal claims and arise out of the same set of facts. Thus, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim so related to a federal claim that they form the same Article III case or controversy.

USA v. Volvo Powertrain Corporation · filed 2012-04-13(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claim of the Air Resources Board is so related to the United States’ claim that it forms part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Section 1367(d) allows thirty days after dismissal to re-file supplemental state-law claims in the appropriate local court.

Hunter v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2012-11-29(d)

Plaintiff Ernest Hunter may re-file his state law claims in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia within thirty days of this Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

When federal claims are revived on appeal, state-law claims dismissed after the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction may be reinstated.

Glazer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC · filed 2013-01-14(c)(3)

Because we have revived some of Glazer’s federal claims, it is appropriate to reinstate his state- law claims as well, including those against Chase.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as surviving federal claims.

Dual Groupe, LLC v. Gans-Mex LLC · filed 2013-03-25(a)

The parties do not dispute that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the federal law claims. Given that this court is not dismissing Dual Groupe’s federal law claims, the court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court with an original jurisdiction claim to hear related state law claims arising from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Falcon-Cuevas v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority · filed 2013-06-28(a)

When a district court has original jurisdiction over a claim, the court also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because plaintiff Falcon’s section 1983 claim remains, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” ... In light of these factors, as well as plaintiff Falcon’s remaining section 1983 claim to ground jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Falcon’s Puerto Rico law claims.

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

Polanco-Bezares v. Rodriguez · filed 2013-08-12(a)

Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are “so related” to the federal claims, such that they “form part of the same case or controversy....” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); ... In the present case, the parties do not cast any doubt that the plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently related.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim when the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the other claims.

Enigma Management Corp. v. Multiplan, Inc. · filed 2014-01-27(a)

Since I have determined that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over Enigma’s other causes of action, this court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law breach of contract claim against Multiplan.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same loan transaction and foreclosure proceedings as a federal FDCPA claim.

Hart v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2014-07-03(a)

The district court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand because plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim gave the court federal jurisdiction over the entire action, including state law claims arising out of the same loan transaction and foreclosure proceedings.

Section 1367(d) gives a plaintiff 30 days after dismissal of a federal action to refile supplemental state-law claims in state court when the state limitations period expired during the federal action.

Glynne v. Wilson Medical Center · filed 2014-09-02(d)

... Plaintiff had 30 days from the date upon which the federal action was dismissed to file her supplemental state law claims in the General Court of Justice.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims sufficiently related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Younie v. City of Hartley · filed 2015-04-09(a)

Having carefully reviewed the allegations of Younie’s complaint, I find that the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Counts II, III and IV is appropriate pursuant to Section 1367(a).

Section 1367(d) gives an otherwise time-barred supplemental state claim a 30-day period after federal dismissal to be refiled in state court.

Kuba v. SeaWorld CA4/1 · filed 2015-04-21(d)

The federal court dismissed Kuba's state claims on April 21, 2011, when the Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision granting summary judgment for SeaWorld on Kuba's federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on Kuba's state claims. (Kuba v. SeaWorld, Inc., supra, 428 Fed.Appx. at p. 730 & fn. 1; Kendrick v. City of Eureka (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 364, 371.) Kuba did not file his complaint until almost 10 months later on February 3, 2012. Accordingly, his claims are time-barred. (28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 622.)

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

Daniczek v. Spencer · filed 2016-01-11(a)

There is supplemental jurisdiction over Count Two (and the remaining state law claims at Counts Five through Eight) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. All those state law claims arise out of the same facts that gave rise to Count One, and, therefore, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Count Two and Counts Five through Eight.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court with original jurisdiction over one claim to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Funderburk v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. · filed 2016-04-15(a)

Additionally, the court finds it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for inverse condemnation, trespass, and strict liability.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court with original jurisdiction over a federal claim to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Sherr v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. · filed 2016-04-18(a)

Additionally, the court finds it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for inverse condemnation, trespass, and strict liability.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims intertwined with federal claims.

A.C. ex rel. Jerry C. v. Scranton School District · filed 2016-06-13(a)

As such, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law tort claims against New Story pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) since these claims are intertwined with their federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court hearing federal claims to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state tort claims arising from the same incident.

Flinchum v. City of Beattyville · filed 2016-12-01(a)

However, the plaintiffs also raise state tort law claims arising from the same incident (i.e., the death of their family member and the related investigation and prosecution) over which this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“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”).

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to claims arising under federal law.

Mehta v. Maddox · filed 2017-11-03(a)

The Court finds that subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in this case because the Complaint raises claims that arise under federal law and related state law claims. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over the two federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a federal district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law malicious prosecution claim.

DeRaffele v. City of Williamsport & T. Evansky, Code Inspector · filed 2019-08-12

It is undisputed that the district court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the malicious prosecution claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a viable federal claim remains.

Oddo v. Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2019-08-12

Because Plaintiffs have a viable FLSA claim, however, I may still exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claim.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Goodwin v. Bailey · filed 2020-07-08(c)

On May 21, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge John H. England, III issued a Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that Plaintiff’s state- law claims for abuse of process and fraud be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). (Doc. 32). ... Having reviewed the proposed findings and recommendations for clear error, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) should be ACCEPTED and hereby ADOPTS it as the findings of the Court.

In a federal question action, supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim requires a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Price v. Sutton · filed 2020-08-21(a)

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no plausible state law claim.

Ruggiero v. Orange County Jail · filed 2020-08-28(a)

Accordingly, the Court lacks a basis for asserting supplemental jurisdiction given the lack of plausible state law claims.

Section 1367 does not support a predominance argument for sending state claims to state court while federal questions remain and predominate.

Pfeiffer v. Ajamie LLP · filed 2020-09-10

Pfeiffer also refers to 28 USC § 1367(d) and a supposed predominance of state law claims over federal claims in this action. Dkt 109 at 1, 4. Until Pfeiffer determines to dismiss with prejudice his federal causes of action, federal questions are presented and predominate here. He may reassert argument under 28 USC § 1367(d) at such time that the procedural posture of the case supports it.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decide supplemental state law claims on the merits and dismiss them with prejudice when it dismisses the federal claims at the same time.

Boyer v. City of Simi Valley · filed 2020-10-14

Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Boyer’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it could evaluate them on the merits and dismiss them with prejudice at the same time it dismissed Boyer’s federal claims.

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

SANDERS v. OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS · filed 2021-02-18(d)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), Plaintiff may bring his state law claims in state court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying this Order.

A discretionary dismissal of state-law claims under § 1367(c) is normally vacated when the federal judgment that prompted it is vacated.

Westmoreland v. Butler Cnty. · filed 2022-03-24(c)

The district court exercised its discretion to dismiss Westmoreland’s pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) after it granted summary judgment on the federal claims. As we vacate the grant of summary judgment on the federal claims, we also vacate the dismissal of the state law claims—our normal practice in this setting.

Section 1367(d) gives a plaintiff 30 days from the order dismissing remaining state law claims to file them in state court to avoid limitations issues.

SINGH v. DROPPA · filed 2022-08-29(d)

The Court notes that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of the accompanying order to file his state law claims in state court to avoid any statute of limitations issues.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law discrimination claim when the court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s related Title VII claims.

Miller v. Johnson · filed 2022-12-15(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law discrimination claim (NRS 613) because she has demonstrated that the Court has jurisdiction over her Title VII claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

A plaintiff must identify the specific state law underlying a claim so the court can determine whether supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate under § 1367.

Sunnergren v. Bright · filed 2023-01-03

Plaintiff must specifically identify the relevant state law such that the Court can determine whether supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(d) gives a plaintiff 30 days after dismissal of supplemental state-law claims to file them in state court without losing them to a statute of limitations.

SINGH v. DROPPA · filed 2023-05-26(d)

The Court again notes that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of the accompanying order to file his state law claims in state court to avoid any statute of limitations issues.

Section 1367 allows a federal court to hear a state-law claim but does not make that claim viable when state law provides no entitlement to relief.

CHAPMAN v. WOOD · filed 2023-07-31

Supplemental jurisdiction might answer whether this court can rule on Ms. Chapman’s claim at all, but it doesn’t answer whether she could be entitled to any relief.

A relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (c)(1) is reviewable, and an appellate remand can reinstate the state-law claims within the district court’s jurisdiction.

St. Augustine School v. Underly · filed 2023-08-14(c)(1)

The effect of our remand to the district court was to revive all of the Forros’ theories, including those based on state law. That is because a relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction is a reviewable decision. Just as importantly, supplemental ju- risdiction does not self-destruct if the federal theories on which it depended are resolved or dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after disposing of the federal claim.

Dukuly 963036 v. Nuttall · filed 2024-03-08

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law medical malpractice claim in an action with a federal claim.

Baker v. Kuehn · filed 2024-10-18(a)

The court also will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law medical malpractice claim against Kuehn.

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims.

Collins v. Pickett · filed 2025-09-30(c)

It is FURTHER ORDERED that any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) against defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, state law claims dismissed after the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) are reinstated too.

Baron v. Staff Benefits Management, Inc. · filed 2025-12-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Baron’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because we reverse dismissal of the federal claims, we reinstate Baron’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law medical malpractice claim related to a federal civil rights claim.

Voss · filed 2026-05-21(a)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law medical malpractice claim against Ribault. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(d) allows a plaintiff 30 days after the dismissal order to bring supplemental state law claims in state court.

BUTU v. BERGEN COUNTY / CITY OF HACKENSACK · filed 2021-08-18(d)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), Plaintiff is free to bring his state law claims in a state court within 30 days of the entry of the Order accompanying this Opinion.

Section 1367 allows state-law claims to survive under supplemental jurisdiction when related federal claims remain in the case.

National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler · filed 1994-05-16

Counts five, six, and seven, which allege violations of state law, survive as well pursuant to the district court's supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not save state law claims that federal law preempts.

Strohmeyer v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (TWP2) · filed 2019-08-05(a)

However, as Equifax points out in reply [Doc. 21 at 8], supplemental jurisdiction does not save state law claims that are preempted by federal law.

Section 1367(b) does not exclude Rule 22 interpleader claims from supplemental jurisdiction; a declaratory judgment claim within the court’s original jurisdiction may support such a claim.

Connecticut General Life Insurance v. Wermelinger · filed 1996-07-26(b)

The court agrees with this reasoning, and therefore holds that a declaratory judgment action within the court’s jurisdiction may serve as the touchstone for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader claim that lacks its own jurisdictional predicate.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim against a party joined under Rule 22, which is absent from its listed rules.

Weaver v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2017-01-23(b)

Perry was joined by Metropolitan as a party under Rule 22, and that rule is not one of those mentioned under section 1367(b) as one for which supplemental jurisdiction is inapplicable. Consequently, the Court concludes that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(a) over Weaver’s claim against Perry for the periodic payments is appropriate.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim against a party joined through Rule 22 interpleader.

Sevelitte v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America · filed 2022-12-07(b)

The district court's application of § 1367(b) was an abuse of discretion because Robyn was made party under Rule 22, not Rule 14.

A party waives an argument that the district court should have declined supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) by failing to raise it in the district court.

International College Of Surgeons v. City Of Chicago · filed 1996-08-01(c)

In addition, we hold that the appellants, International College of Surgeons ("ICS") and Robin Construction Corporation, have waived their contention that the district court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); that contention was not raised in the district court.

An objection to the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is waivable and comes too late if first raised on appeal absent exceptional circumstances.

Jane Doe, a Minor Child, by Next Friend, Leslie G. Fein v. District of Columbia · filed 1996-08-27(c)

Because appel-lees’ objection goes only to the prudential factors underlying supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1994), this objection has been waived.

A party waives a challenge to the district court’s discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) by failing to raise it in the district court.

International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago · filed 1998-08-06(c)

In addition, we hold that the appellants, International College of Surgeons (“ICS”) and Robin Construction Corporation, have waived their contention that the district court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. -§ 1367(c); that contention was not raised in the district court.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims when compelling public policy reasons warrant it.

Ballard v. Equifax Check Services, Inc. · filed 1999-02-22(c)(4)

The court finds that there are compelling reasons of public policy embodied in the FDCPA for declining jurisdiction in this case.

A party waives an objection to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over complex state law claims by failing to raise it in the district court, absent special circumstances.

New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries, Inc. · filed 1999-11-22(c)(1)

A district court's decision to determine such claims is discretionary, and where a party has failed to object to the district court's exercise of this jurisdiction, in the absence of special circumstances, the challenge is waived. ... We find no exceptional circumstances in this case, and hold that the Turnpike has waived its objections to the District Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this matter.

Section 1367(c)(4) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction merely because a party has difficulty clarifying its claim.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. City of El Paso · filed 2001-08-23(c)(4)

Although this claim is potentially unwieldy, a party’s inability to clarify a claim does not present an exceptional circumstance or a compelling reason to decline jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law is unsettled and trying the state claim with federal claims risks jury confusion.

Hockeson v. New York State Office of General Services · filed 2002-02-21(c)

Given the unsettled nature of the state of the law in New York regarding § 296(6), especially the repudiation by many New York courts of the Tomka holding, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these State law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, ... or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state tax refund claims when exercising it would conflict with the federalism principles embodied in the Tax Injunction Act.

Gray v. Owens · filed 2006-02-08(c)(4)

Second, exercising supplemental jurisdiction here would be inconsistent with the principles of federalism embodied in the TIA and emphasized by the Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit in cases involving local tax disputes. ... Accordingly, even if the TIA does not deprive this Court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims involving a refund of school impact fees, compelling reasons exist for declining to exercise such jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Article 78 claim because its state-specific procedural character supplies compelling reasons.

Morningside Supermarket Corp. v. New York State Department of Health · filed 2006-05-18(c)(4)

These are compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Morningside’s third cause of action, and there is nothing exceptional about Morningside’s claim that would justify deviation from the well-reasoned and essentially unanimous position of New York district courts on this issue.

Section 1367(c)(4) considers compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction; it does not supply a reason to retain jurisdiction.

Welch v. Jannereth · filed 2012-11-07(c)(4)

The last statutory factor is whether there are compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction. § 1367(c)(4). We should be clear that this is not a factor that would support retaining jurisdiction, but instead it examines reasons that override any considerations that might lead to retaining the case.

A challenge to the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is waived if it was not raised in the district court.

Powers v. City of New Orleans · filed 2015-04-15(c)

As an initial matter, the CSC has waived its challenge to the district court’s discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over its cross-claim because it failed to object in that court.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims out of deference to California's heightened pleading requirements for disability lawsuits and in the interest of comity.

Velez v. Cloghan Concepts, LLC · filed 2019-06-10(c)(4)

The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction out of deference to California's heightened pleading requirements for disability lawsuits under the Unruh Act, and in the interest of comity, as California courts should interpret the state's disability laws.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yiun v. Reidel · filed 2022-03-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Williams v. ATJ and B LLC · filed 2022-03-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when its discretionary factors favor doing so.

Ibarra Consulting Engineers Inc v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc · filed 2022-03-30(c)

At least three of the four factors outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) governing when a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction counsel against declining to do so here. That statute allows a district court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction if “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” The plaintiffs’ state-law claims raise neither novel nor complex issues of state law, they do not predominate over the breach of contract claim based on Jacobs’s alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. § 26, and there are no exceptional circumstances.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that may raise complex state-law issues and risk confusing the jury if tried with federal claims.

Fetinci v. Rayco Logistics, LLC · filed 2024-04-25(c)

This Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ state-law claims may raise complex issues of state law. ... Thus, the potential for jury confusion is yet another reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims in this putative class action.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law counterclaim when deciding both claims together serves judicial economy and no compelling reason warrants declining jurisdiction.

Goins · filed 2026-06-22(c)(4)

But this court has already concluded the general rule should not govern here.63 For all the reasons explained above, the FLSA claim and unjust enrichment counterclaim arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact such that considering the claim for underpayment alongside the counterclaim for overpayment serves judicial economy.64 As the Jones court explained, “[a] simultaneous determination of the claims is necessary to calculate the appropriate measure of damages.”65 Accordingly, the court will exercise jurisdiction over Wolverine’s Counterclaim.

Section 1367(b)'s restriction on claims by plaintiffs does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant's counterclaim against a newly joined nondiverse party.

Gardner v. Larkin · filed 2019-11-13(b)

As interpreted in this Circuit (and elsewhere), § 1367 is clear that the absence of diversity does not require the dismissal of Larkin’s counterclaim against CBWM because the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which permits the addition of new, non-diverse, parties by a defendant, who is not the original plaintiff.

Section 1367(b)'s limits on supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving nondiverse additional parties in diversity actions apply only when plaintiffs bring the additional claims.

HB General Corp. v. Manchester Partners, L.P. · filed 1996-09-13(b)

Although the statute places certain limits on a court's ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by or against non-diverse additional parties when the basis for the original claim is diversity jurisdiction, those limits only apply when the additional claims are brought by plaintiffs.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a separate action with no independent jurisdictional basis when its claims lack the intertwined facts and law needed to tie them to an action within original federal jurisdiction.

In Re September 11 Litigation · filed 2011-02-22(a)

However, IRI's claims do not arise within a case also seeking to adjudicate federal claims. ... This case does not present the intertwined issues of fact and law that drove the rulings in Liberty Mutual. Supplemental jurisdiction is unwarranted.

Section 1367(b) does not bar an intervenor’s claim in a diversity action when the claim independently satisfies original diversity jurisdiction.

Clemmons v. Mortgage Elec. Reg. Sys. · filed 2014-11-12(b)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), cited by Plaintiffs, generally bars an intervening party from asserting claims through supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity action, this bar does not apply to claims which independently satisfy the requirements of original diversity jurisdiction.

In a diversity action, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a Rule 24 intervenor claim if the intervenor is not completely diverse from opposing parties or the claim does not independently exceed $75,000.

Gallodoro v. Walter Isaacson, LLC · filed 2021-05-28(b)

Therefore, to intervene in a diversity action, an intervening party must be completely diverse from opposing parties, and the intervening claim must assert an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. The lack of either element is sufficient to bar jurisdiction over claims that would otherwise be covered by supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims despite a lack of diversity of citizenship between the cross-claim parties.

Taylor v. Tesco Corp. · filed 2011-09-08(a)

Moreover, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over these cross-claims, despite any absence of diversity of citizenship between any of the Pride Defendants and Tesco US.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims between non-diverse co-parties, so those cross-claims do not defeat diversity jurisdiction.

Burrell-Hamilton v. Oden · filed 2020-03-16(a)

Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims between non-diverse co-parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over crossclaims between nondiverse co-parties, so such a crossclaim does not defeat subject matter jurisdiction or require remand.

Guzman v. Evans Delivery Co. Inc. · filed 2023-10-05(a)

That said, the Court notes that asserting a crossclaim against a non-diverse co-party does not defeat subject matter jurisdiction. See id. (“Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims between non-diverse co-parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).”) (collecting cases); Hammond v. Toy Industry Ass’n, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 484, 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“With respect to the cross-claims . . . the Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) wherever diversity jurisdiction does not exist.”). Thus, even if Brito and Del Orden were to add crossclaims against Guzman, that would not form a basis for remand.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related cross-claims when the statutory grounds for declining jurisdiction do not apply.

Moeller v. Mulvey · filed 1996-11-27(c)

Here, none of these factors support a refusal to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction. The action does not raise novel or complex issues of State law but, instead, the resolution of the cross-claims would appear to involve the straightforward application of well-settled principles of tort law. Nor have we dismissed all of the claims over which we have original jurisdiction, for the disposition of Hall’s Motion for Summary Judgment has no substantive effect upon Moeller’s Petition for Limitation of Liability.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the party supplying original federal jurisdiction is dismissed, if original jurisdiction existed when the action began.

New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc. · filed 1996-12-10(a)

We decide only that this case comes within § 1367(a) and the district court therefore had the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the RTC.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for an asserted supplemental claim while the federal case is pending and for thirty days after dismissal, even when the federal claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Stevens v. Arco Management of Washington D.C., Inc. · filed 2000-05-25(d)

The language of § 1367(d) does not require a successful assertion of federal jurisdiction. Moreover, the subsection does not differentiate among the possible reasons for dismissal, whether it be on the merits, or for jurisdictional reasons.

Section 1367 requires remand of remaining state law claims when the claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Carol A. Ward, D.C. v. Alternative Health Delivery Systems, Inc. Physicians Consultant & Management Corporation · filed 2001-08-22(c)

If it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, however, it must remand the remaining claims.

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over a lien dispute after dismissal when the judgment neither incorporates the settlement agreement nor reserves authority to enforce it.

Hill, John A. v. Baxter Healthcare · filed 2005-04-21

But that element was lacking in the June 29 order and therefore the court could not exercise supplemen- tal jurisdiction over the lien dispute.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the claims that satisfied the diversity amount-in-controversy requirement.

Freyberg v. Dco 2400 14th Street, LLC · filed 2021-04-08(c)(3)

In this Circuit, once the claims that brought the amount in controversy above $75,000 have been dismissed, a court has discretion over whether to proceed on the remaining state-law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” via its supplemental (or “pendent”) jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal party is dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Stigge v. Roddy Family Farms LLC · filed 2022-09-13

Having determined the government should be dismissed, the Court must decide whether to retain this case or remand it to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), (d); Parker v. Della Rocco, 252 F.3d 663, 665-66 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting some uncertainty but concluding the district court had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 after the only federal defendant was dismissed); ... “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” ... Upon careful review of the relevant factors, the Court finds nothing to distinguish “this case from the usual case.”

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims among interpleader claimants after dismissing a diverse stakeholder.

Clausen v. Protective Life Insurance · filed 2023-06-22

Even after it dismisses Protective from the case, the court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not support jurisdiction over a later attorneys’ fee dispute when the dismissal order neither incorporates the settlement terms nor retains jurisdiction.

Faulk v. Tilden Fundamental Cypress Lakes Apartments, LLC · filed 2025-02-07(a)

Here, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction because the settlement terms were not incorporated into the parties’ stipulation of dismissal or the Court’s November 23, 2022 dismissal order. Neither the stipulation nor the dismissal order contains any language retaining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims that fall below the diversity amount in controversy after dismissal of the claim that met it.

Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services, Inc. · filed 1997-01-09(c)(3)

In a case premised solely on diversity jurisdiction, if one claim is dismissed, the district court may, in its discretion, dismiss the remaining claims if they fail to meet the threshold amount in controversy. ... Thus, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over the parties’ remaining claims, without prejudice to their reassertion in an appropriate state court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims in a case involving a foreign sovereign, including claims against other parties when the sovereign is a third-party defendant.

In Re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana on October 31, 1994. Appeal of Theresa A. Severin, as of the Estate of P · filed 1997-01-16(a)

On these facts, § 1367(a) provides that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in a case involving a foreign sovereign.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a fee dispute raised by a former attorney who was neither a party nor a pendent party in the underlying action.

Asensio v. DiFiore · filed 2019-07-08(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), however, supplemental jurisdiction applies only to “claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” (emphasis added). Because, in the underlying litigation, Ms. Ambats has asserted no claims, nor have any been asserted against her—indeed, she is not a party nor a pendent party in Mr. Asensio’s case—there is no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her fee dispute with Ms. Bosak.

Section 1367 leaves the district court discretion to retain a remaining state-law claim after the federal claim is reversed, allowing it to retry the claim or dismiss it without prejudice.

Harris v. City of Virginia Beach · filed 1997-03-31(c)(3)

We leave to the district court's discretion whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court may proceed to a new trial or dismiss the suit without prejudice to its being refiled in state court.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to retain or dismiss a supplemental state-law claim after the federal claim has been eliminated on appeal.

Harris v. City of VA Beach · filed 1997-03-31(c)(3)

We leave to the district court's discretion whether to con- tinue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court may proceed to a new trial or dismiss the suit without prej- udice to its being refiled in state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims after disposing of the federal claim, particularly when federal preemption resolves the state-law claims.

Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co. · filed 1997-04-28(c)(3)

The district court had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' pendent state-law claims. ... The district court's decision to retain jurisdiction in this case was far from an abuse of discretion, especially given that the court disposed of the plaintiffs' pendent state-law claims based on federal preemption.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims after disposing of the federal claim.

Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines · filed 1997-05-28(c)(3)

The district court had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' pendent state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3); see also Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1344 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 868, 115 S.Ct. 189, 130 L.Ed.2d 122 (1994). The district court's decision to retain jurisdiction in this case was far from an abuse of discretion, especially given that the court disposed of the plaintiffs' pendent state-law claims based on federal preemption.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after resolving the federal claim on summary judgment.

Jaffe v. Catholic Medical Center · filed 2003-11-24(c)

Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised on the existence of a federal question arising from the ADA claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction as to the state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Although the ADA claim is resolved on summary judgment, the court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. C f . § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after resolving the federal claims when the progress of the case and the absence of novel or complex state law issues favor doing so.

Amatucci v. Hamilton, et al. · filed 2007-06-25(c)

Having resolved Amatucci’s federal claims in favor of defendants, the court must next determine whether it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. Given that discovery has closed, the parties have submitted dispositive motions, the case is scheduled for trial in approximately three weeks, and plaintiff’s claims do not raise any novel or complex issues of state law, the court concludes that, in the exercise of its discretion, it is appropriate to address plaintiff’s state law claims. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the court discretion to retain a state-law claim after disposing of the federal claim when convenience, fairness, and judicial economy favor retention.

Johnson v. Builders Firstsource Southeast Group, LLC · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)

The ability to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in limited circumstances” such as when “the court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction” remains in the court’s discretion. ... While Johnson is correct that the court could refuse to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction, a review of the circumstances warrants retaining jurisdiction. ... Thus, to best use the courts and parties’ resources, and to bring about a quick resolution of the case, the court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s defamation claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after resolving all federal claims when the court has spent substantial resources on the state claims and their resolution is clear.

Gilsinger v. Cities and Villages Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

However, because the parties devote almost half of their briefing to the state law claims, the state law claims have been previously briefed and/or adjudicated in Rule 12 motions, ECF Nos. 21, 35, 40, and because it is clearly apparent how they should be decided, the Court will proceed to address them.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state claims after the federal claims are dismissed, and retaining them can be an abuse of that discretion.

Blue v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Company · filed 1997-05-13(c)

When a district court dismisses the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, as it did here, it has discretion either to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims or to dismiss them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Under these circumstances, we think it was error for the court to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial, and generally favors dismissal except in rare circumstances.

Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc. · filed 1997-10-28(c)(3)

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court has the discretion to dismiss state claims over which the court has assumed supplemental jurisdiction and, generally, the court should do so in all but the rarest of instances.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the decision whether to retain supplemental state claims after dismissal of the federal claim to the district court’s discretion.

Szumny, Frank J. v. American Gen'l Finan · filed 2001-04-13(c)(3)

The decision to retain supplemental claims is left to the discretion of the district court. ... There was no abuse of discretion here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state claims against defendants when no federal claims remain against them.

Gonzalez-Mercado v. Municipality of Guaynabo · filed 2002-05-22(c)(3)

The supplemental state claims against co-defendants Mayor O’Neill and Commissioner Castillo are also dismissed without prejudice pursuant to • 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), inasmuch as no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain against them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss claims within its supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Neuens v. City of Columbus · filed 2003-02-11(c)(3)

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court has the discretion to dismiss claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, in light of the Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendant on the only remaining federal claim, the Court DISMISSES the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a supplemental state-law claim after all federal claims have been disposed of.

Tiedeman v. State of Nebraska Department of Corrections · filed 2005-07-20(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims have now been disposed of, dismissal of the state claim is clearly correct under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only over related claims in the same action that supplies original jurisdiction, not in a separate or subsequent lawsuit to enforce a settlement agreement.

Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines · filed 1997-06-10(a)

The phrases "in any civil action" and "in the action" require that supplemental jurisdiction be exercised in the same case, not a separate or subsequent case.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought in separate actions, even when the actions are consolidated for convenience.

Guillermo V. Franceskin v. Credit Suisse · filed 2000-06-05(a)

Even if we assume that we have diversity jurisdiction over appellant's claims against Lloyds, those claims were brought separately and are legally distinct, albeit now consolidated for purposes of convenience. As a result, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, which applies only to "related claims in the action," 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (emphasis added), cannot supply the missing jurisdictional link.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim only when another claim in the same action has an independent basis for federal jurisdiction; related claims in separate federal or bankruptcy actions do not suffice.

Phelps v. Nationwide Insurance · filed 2002-06-17

Section 1367 permits claims, over which there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction, to be entertained only if there are other claims in the same action over which independent federal jurisdiction exists. That other actions, however related to the Phelpses’ claims in this case, are pending in federal district and bankruptcy courts does not create jurisdiction under Section 1367.

Section 1367(a) cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over a new claim when no related action with an independent basis for jurisdiction remains pending before the court.

Heartland By-Products, Inc. v. United States · filed 2004-07-01(a)

Furthermore, if there were, Heartland’s analogy fails since exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a new claim would require an action pending before the court over which it presently has an independent basis for jurisdiction. In the instant case, Heartland’s previous claim was dismissed, and there is no pending action before the court to which Heartland’s present complaint relates. Therefore, this court cannot take jurisdiction over Heartland’s complaint under section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only over claims in the same civil action as a claim within original federal jurisdiction; a related, separately filed state action cannot rely on jurisdiction retained in a prior federal case.

Energy Management Services v. City of Alexandria · filed 2014-01-20(a)

Moreover, regardless of how factually intertwined with EMS’s suit, the district court’s retention of jurisdiction over the post-settlement matters may not substitute for original jurisdiction for the purpose of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 or removal under § 1441, given that EMS’s claims were not asserted in the same proceeding as the claims in City v. CLECO.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a separate contract dispute that lacks an original-jurisdiction claim in the same action and is not sufficiently intertwined with the federal litigation.

Industrial Risk Insurers v. 7 World Trade Co. · filed 2011-02-22(a)

This case does not present the intertwined issues of fact and law that drove the rulings in Liberty Mutual. Supplemental jurisdiction is unwarranted.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over claims filed in a separate state-court action, even if they are factually related to a federal case; the claims must be asserted in the same proceeding as claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Energy Management Services, LLC v. City of Alexandria · filed 2014-01-09(a)

Moreover, regardless of how factually intertwined with EMS’s suit, the district court’s retention of jurisdiction over the post-settlement matters may not substitute for original jurisdiction for the purpose of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 or removal under § 1441, given that EMS’s claims were not asserted in the same proceeding as the claims in City v. CLECO.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a separately filed action merely because it is factually related to another action within federal jurisdiction.

Mensah v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2020-03-05(a)

There is no supplemental jurisdiction because this case is a separate action, not “[an]other claim[]” in an underlying action over which federal courts have jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a separate suit seeking a new judgment after the defendant satisfied an earlier federal judgment, even when the suits are factually interdependent.

HHC v. York Insurance · filed 1998-02-18

This Court holds that supplemental jurisdiction does not lie in a subsequent federal proceeding to (1) obtain a new federal judgment (2) against a defendant against whom one previously obtained a federal judgment (3) which the defendant has already satisfied (4) even if the factual basis for both suits is identical and interdependent.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a separately filed, independent action merely because it shares facts and legal issues with an action already within federal jurisdiction.

Siegel v. Consolidated Edison, Inc. · filed 2004-05-15(a)

Absent intervention in the Con Ed/NU action, § 1367 cannot provide Siegel with a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a separate state tort action merely because a related federal lawsuit involves the same parties and some of the same facts.

Nagler v. ILLIANO · filed 2008-11-08

However, the fact that there is a separate federal lawsuit that raises a federal question and involves these parties and shares some of the same operative facts does not mean that the instant suit, sounding only in tort, can be heard in the federal courts.

Section 1367 does not provide jurisdiction over a separately filed lawsuit merely because it relates to another action within federal jurisdiction.

Auto-Owners Insurance v. Ergonomics Plus, Inc. · filed 2014-12-05

In the alternative, Auto-Owners claims that the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides this Court with original federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is mistaken. ... As such, Humantech’s claims in the earlier filed copyright infringement action does not provide an basis for federal question jurisdiction in this separately-filed declaratory judgment action.

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a removed action merely because a related federal action was filed separately.

Fracasse v. People's United Bank · filed 2014-03-27(a)

There is no diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, over the removed claims, nor is there supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as the removed action was not part of the separately filed, albeit related, federal case.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over a claim in the same action; original jurisdiction in a separate lawsuit cannot support supplemental jurisdiction.

Abend v. Boyd · filed 2010-05-19(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction cannot be based upon original jurisdiction asserted in another lawsuit.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims but does not provide original jurisdiction to remove a separately filed state action.

Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2010-04-14(a)

Section 1367 grants “supplemental jurisdiction” over state claims, not original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims in a single suit, but not over one separate suit based on another suit.

Reiniche v. Martin · filed 2012-02-23(a)

But §1367 does not allow one entire suit to be treated as “supplemental” to another. Section 1367 deals with multiple claims in a single suit. No claim in this suit has ever been within federal jurisdiction, so §1367 is inapplicable.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a separate, related action when the court lacks original jurisdiction over that action.

Crawford v. Bleeden · filed 2022-02-10(a)

Moreover, the plain language of § 1367 refers to claims within one action, not separate actions. Thus, the statute does not provide supplemental jurisdiction for a separate but related case over which the court would not have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a separate lawsuit merely because it relates to a case already in federal court.

District of Columbia v. Vizion One, Inc. · filed 2022-02-22(a)

Second, while claims may be aggregated by supplemental jurisdiction, separate suits, such as those at issue here, may not be.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim in the same lawsuit.

Ocwen Financial Corporation v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2023-11-20(a)

A court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where it occurs in the same lawsuit as the related claim(s) (over which the court has original subject matter jurisdiction).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when claims with an independent basis of federal jurisdiction are brought in the same action and form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Chen v. Eagle Trading USA, LLC · filed 2024-04-09(a)

Moreover, unlike in the Ameriway action, I cannot take supplemental jurisdiction over Chen’s claims, because there are no claims with an independent basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction “brought in the same action” that “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Briarpatch Ltd., L.P v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the same state-law claims are already pending in state court, giving a compelling reason to avoid parallel litigation.

Seaton v. Seaton · filed 1997-07-01(c)(4)

Likewise, to the extent these torts were committed during the final altercation, they should nonetheless be dismissed, since they are, again, mirrored in the state court action. ... As such, the court finds this to be another “compelling reason” [for declining jurisdiction] and must decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of these pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when an earlier pending state action involving those claims provides a compelling reason to do so.

U.S. Department of Justice v. Ables d/b/a Pops Cove · filed 2019-10-08(c)(4)

The Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Jones and Yarbrough’s breach of contract and breach of quiet enjoyment claims is inappropriate. Although Intervenor- Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same fact pattern, their residency at Pops Cove, the Court concludes that the prior existence of Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ state-court assertions is a compelling reason for declining to exercise jurisdiction over those same claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse plaintiff joined under Rule 20 in a diversity action, even though subsection (b) does not expressly exclude that plaintiff’s claims.

Barragan v. General Motors LLC · filed 2015-07-06(a), (b)

The fact that Campas’s claims are not excluded from the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(b) does not support the assertion that § 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction .over claims brought by a nondiverse plaintiff in a diversity case.

In a diversity case, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim against a nondiverse defendant joined under Rule 20 when the joinder defeats diversity.

Ascension Enterprises, Inc. v. Allied Signal, Inc. · filed 1997-07-11(b)

The addition of Daigle, under Rule 20, as a defendant destroys subject matter jurisdiction because Daigle is a Louisiana resident and plaintiffs are Louisiana residents. § 1367(b) expressly prohibits Daigle from being joined as a defendant because his presence in the suit defeats diversity subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(b) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims by non-diverse plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 in an action founded on diversity jurisdiction.

El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1997-10-15(b)

Thus, I conclude that under the plain language of § 1367 the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of the additional, non-diverse Plaintiffs named in the amended Complaint.