28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as federal claims properly before the court.

Tarta v. Nation Care, Inc. · filed 2012-06-05(a)

The plaintiff’s Title VII claims are properly before this Court and therefore jurisdiction over the state law claims may be asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims are part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to a colorable federal claim when they form part of the same case or controversy.

Treasurer State NJ v. US Dept Treas · filed 2012-06-27(a)

Inasmuch as the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the States‟ Tenth Amendment claim, by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 it had jurisdiction over the States‟ entire complaint. Section 1367 provides, with inapplicable exceptions, if “the district courts have original jurisdiction, [they] shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Here it is clear that all of the States‟ claims are related to their claim under the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1367 extends supplemental jurisdiction to claims related to a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction when they form part of the same case or controversy.

Treasurer of New Jersey v. United States Department of the Treasury · filed 2012-06-27(a)

Inasmuch as the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the States’ Tenth Amendment claim, by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 it had jurisdiction over the States’ entire complaint. Section 1367 provides, with inapplicable exceptions, if “the district courts have original jurisdiction, [they] shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Here it is clear that all of the States’ claims are related to their claim under the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact as substantial federal constitutional claims.

Rogers Group, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas · filed 2012-07-05(a)

And, Rogers Group's claim that the City lacked authority under Arkansas law to regulate the Quarry—Count I— arises from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" as its federal constitutional claims. That is, all the claims concern the City's passage of an ordinance regulating rock quarries, including Rogers Group's Quarry.

Section 1367(a) requires claims to derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction for supplemental jurisdiction to exist.

Schatzberg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 2012-07-12(a)

Upon careful review of the allegations contained in both Count I of the Amended Complaint related to Dr. Sehatzberg’s defamation claim, Count III related to Philadelphia Pain Management’s MVFRL claim, and Count IV related to both Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over either Counts III or IV because the two claims are not derived from a common nucleus of operative fact with Count I.

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

Ted Mink v. State of Arizona · filed 2012-07-30(a)

Contrary to Mink’s contentions, the district court had jurisdiction over his state law claims because those claims arose out of the same case or controversy as Mink’s federal claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over Commonwealth claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as a surviving federal claim.

Morales-Diaz v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority · filed 2012-09-30(a)

Since plaintiffs Commonwealth claims spring from the same nucleus of operative facts, the court finds that the federal and Commonwealth claims are part of the same case or controversy for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Moore v. It's All Good Auto Sales, Inc. · filed 2012-10-01(a)

However, the Court recommends that the state law claims regarding IAG and Goodfellow’s advertising to the general public and conduct regarding the transactions with Moore are part of the same case and controversy appropriate for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Board of Education v. Memphis City Board of Education · filed 2012-11-27(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Commissioners’ state-law claims because they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and “form part of the same case or controversy” as the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a survival action arising from the same facts as a wrongful death claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Durlacher v. Hoffschneider · filed 2013-01-29(a)

The brothers’ survival action arises from the same facts as their wrongful death claim — namely, Mr. Durlacher’s snowmobile accident and resulting injuries — such that the survival action forms part of the same case or controversy ... within the meaning of § 1367(a). The Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over the survival action.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against defendants whose federal claims were dismissed when those state claims overlap factually with surviving federal claims against other defendants.

Diaz-Colon v. Toledo-Davila · filed 2013-02-08(a)

Although the federal causes of actions against defendants Fuentes, Toledo, Solivan, Tirado, Colon, Capo, Figueroa, and Capo have been dismissed, the Court can maintain jurisdiction over the Commonwealth claims remaining against them because there is a complete overlap in the factual allegations in these state claims and the remaining federal claims against defendants Baez, Figueroa-Cruz, Redondo and defendants not party to the motion to dismiss.

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

Sayan-Resto v. Berrios · filed 2013-03-27(a)

Since her Commonwealth claims spring from the same nucleus of operative facts, the Court finds that the federal and Commonwealth claims are part of the same case or controversy for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction, including related state law claims against an original defendant in an action removed by a foreign sovereign third-party defendant.

Marshall v. Boeing Co. · filed 2013-04-17(a)

Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore part of the same case or controversy over which this court has original jurisdiction, and the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims.

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

Polo-Echevarria v. Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc. · filed 2013-06-13(a)

Having denied the motions to dismiss Jonathan’s federal claims, however, the Court DENIES the motions to dismiss Jonathan’s other state law claims, because those claims arise from the same set of operative facts and form part of the same case or controversy.

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

Alexander v. City of New York · filed 2013-07-23(a)

In light of my conclusion that the gender-related disparate treatment claim under Title VII, based on termination, should not be dismissed, and since this claim is so related to the City and State Human Rights Law claims as to form a part of the ... same case or controversy, it is appropriate to let the Human Rights Law claims arising out of these allegations proceed to a motion for summary judgment as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Manning v. Boston Medical Center Corp. · filed 2013-08-01(a)

Even if the district court had been made aware of McCarthy as a plaintiff, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over her claims would have been more than appropriate, since they were undisputedly part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over an attorney fee dispute that is not part of the same case or controversy as the underlying federal action.

Womack v. Dolgencorp., Inc. · filed 2013-08-02(a)

After careful consideration of these opinions, the court is convinced that this attorneys’ fee dispute is not part of the same case or controversy so as to give the court supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires claims to be so related to those within original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

CH Holding Co. v. Miller Parking Co. · filed 2013-09-12(a)

Nor are they “so related to” the other claims in the complaint “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that relate to federal claims closely enough to form the same case or controversy.

Griffin v. Jones · filed 2013-09-27(a)

Because the Court properly exercises jurisdiction over Griffin’s federal law claims, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because they so relate to the federal claims as to form the same case and controversy.

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

Uzoukwu v. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments · filed 2013-09-30(a)

To the extent Plaintiff claims Smith intentionally interfered with a “prospective business advantage” relating to her personal affairs, (see Amend. Compl. ¶ 68), such claims must be pursued through a separate lawsuit. Any such claims are not “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Thus, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Kaczorowski v. Town of North Smithfield · filed 2013-10-01(a)

The Court finds that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. Mr. Kaczorowski’s state law claims “form part of the same case or controversy” as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) requires state law claims to form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims; sharing a subject matter alone does not suffice.

New York State Psychiatric Ass'n v. Unitedhealth Group · filed 2013-10-31(a)

Kamins’s three remaining claims arise under state statutes that are not identical to the ERISA provisions at issue and so are “related” only in the sense that both sets of statutes concern the same subject matter. His state law claims are not “so related” to the other individual plaintiffs’ federal claims as to “form part of the same case or controversy” as the ERISA claims.

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

Regenicin, Inc. v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc. · filed 2014-02-14(a)

Because the state-law claims form the same case or controversy as the federal-law claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Slate v. Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia · filed 2014-04-02(a)

The Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s common law claims in Counts IX–XI under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because these are part of the same case or controversy as the Title VII claims.

Section 1367 permits a court exercising jurisdiction over a federal claim to retain jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same controversy.

Marais v. Chase Home Finance, LLC · filed 2014-06-04(a)

In light of the Sixth Circuit’s reversal and this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Marais’ RESPA claim, the Court retains jurisdiction over Marais’ state law claims because they are part of the same controversy.

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

Saiger v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-06-19(a)

Having denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Saiger’s state law claim because the claim is part of the same case or controversy as his federal claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims that arise from the same Article III case or controversy as the original claims.

Sarkis' Cafe, Inc. v. Sarks in the Park, LLC · filed 2014-07-03(a)

Here, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s third-party claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claims arise out of the same Article III case or controversy as do Plaintiffs claims against Defendant.

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

Grimmett v. Dace · filed 2014-07-28(a)

Having determined that ERISA completely preempts at least one of Grim-mett’s claims and thereby gives this Court subject matter jurisdiction, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Grimmett’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. That statute provides in relevant part that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related ... that they form part of the same case or controversy....” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Here, all of Grimmett’s claims arise out of the same case or controversy — namely, the Plan’s representation of Grimmett in his proceeding against Hidden Hills.

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

Alexan v. Burke · filed 2014-08-04(a)

In addition, because the state law claim alleged in Count II arises from the same case or controversy as Count III, and in consideration of fairness and convenience to the Plaintiff, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Count II pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Levitin v. Northwest Community Hospital · filed 2014-08-12(a)

Because the Title VII claim survives dismissal, and because the state law claims “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III” as the Title VII claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the court has and will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. · filed 2014-07-28(a)

Outland concedes that its state antitrust claims over- lapped with its federal antitrust claims, but in fact all of its original counterclaims arose from a common nucleus of op- erative facts.

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

Omni Energy Services Corp. v. Rhyne · filed 2014-10-15(a)

Considering this statute, and based on the assertions of that petition and the content of the Agreement, we find that the federal court had original jurisdiction over the federal claims asserted in Federal Suit I and supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims also asserted therein.

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

Tjeknavorian v. Mardirossian · filed 2014-10-22(a)

However, because the contract dispute “form[s] part of the same case or controversy” as the writing issue,... this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ contract claims.

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

Adams-Erazo v. Hospital San Gerardo · filed 2014-10-30(a)

When a district court has original jurisdiction over a claim, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... In light of these factors, as well as plaintiffs’ remaining EMTALA claim to ground jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Puer-to Rico law claims.

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

Cefarrati v. Jbg Properties, Inc. · filed 2014-11-06(a)

Plaintiff’s claim against Potomac Creek is based on the exact same case or controversy as his claim against JBG—Plaintiff, after all, has not alleged any material difference between Potomac Creek and JBG. Accordingly, the claim against Potomac Creek is properly before this Court pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is so closely related to a claim within original federal jurisdiction that both form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.

Brown v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-11-13(a)

The first claim is within the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction, because it is a claim that is so closely related to claims that are within original federal jurisdiction that it “form[s] part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Cfa Institute v. Andre · filed 2014-11-25(a)

Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims under 28 U.S.C. §1331, and the plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), since the plaintiff’s claims under the common law of the District of Columbia “are so related to claims in the action within [the Court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a settlement enforcement claim when dismissal of the related claims leaves no connection to the original federal case.

Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall, Inc. · filed 2014-11-30(a)

Without those claims, nothing connects the Dealerships’ claims involving the Settlement Agreement claims back to the main case.

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

Hartman v. University of Maryland · filed 2014-12-11(a)

The district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2012), which provides that district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that “are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Matthews v. Corning Inc. · filed 2014-12-31(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs aider and abettor claims brought pursuant to the New York State Executive Law because they form part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs federal discrimination claims.

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

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Acute Care Chiropractic Clinic P.A. · filed 2015-02-13(a)

Claims arising from a scheme of fraud allegedly perpetrated by the same overarching enterprise form the same case or controversy. ... Applying this standard here, Plaintiffs’ Count II through VIII are all claims that allegedly arise from the fraud that Defendants’ enterprise perpetrated.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share the key facts of a surviving federal claim.

Municipality of San Sebastian v. Rico · filed 2015-03-06(a)

Because the Municipality’s supplemental claims are “so related” to its federal First Amendment claim, and because the above delineated factors do not mandate otherwise, the Court will assert supplemental jurisdiction over the Municipality’s Puerto Rico law claims.

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

Lagasan v. Al-Ghasel · filed 2015-03-17(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they form part of the same case or controversy and share a common nucleus of operative fact with her federal law claims.

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

Ungureanu v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. · filed 2015-03-24(a)

The district court properly denied the Ungureanus’ motion to remand their state law claims to state court because the state and federal claims are part of the same case or controversy, affording the district court supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) reaches state law claims arising from the same set of facts as the federal claims.

Chao Xia "Renee" Zhang-Kirkpatrick v. Layer Saver LLC · filed 2015-03-26(a)

Indeed, plaintiffs state law claims arise out of the same set of facts — the loan to Layer Saver that did not get paid back — as the federal securities law claims.

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

Sender v. Franklin Resources, Inc. · filed 2015-06-16(a)

As long as there remains a claim under ERISA, however, the district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Cal. Corp. Code § 419(b) claim and need not remand it to state court, as the claim arises from the same “case or controversy” as the ERISA claim.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

CH Holding Co. v. Miller Parking Co. · filed 2015-06-23(a)

Nor are they “so related to” the other claims in the complaint “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Sun v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2015-09-30(a)

Since the remaining claims of wrongful termination, retaliation under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act (“DCWPA”), breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault “are so related [to the Title VII claim] that they form part of the same . . . controversy,” the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) covers state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims.

Masciotta v. Clarkstown Central School District · filed 2015-09-30(a)

Here, Plaintiffs state and federal claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts,*namely the search of Plaintiff.

Section 1367 permits a court with federal-question jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy.

Weigle v. Pifer ex rel. City of Vienna Police Department · filed 2015-10-14(a)

A district court properly invested with jurisdiction can also exercise supplemental jurisdictioii over state law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy.” ... Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction over all of Weigle’s claims.

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

Amaya v. Bregman · filed 2015-12-16(a)

Without the RICO claim (or any other federal claim) asserted by Wetherbee, the Court would not have jurisdiction to hear his state-law claims unless they were so related to the Plaintiffs' wiretap claim (i.e., the claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction) as to form the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Such is not the case here. Wetherbee’s allegations of corruption, sleuthing, publication, and retaliation are too attenuated from Plaintiffs' claims for stolen- emails to form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal claims only when they form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Collins v. City of New York · filed 2016-01-11(a)

This Court only has supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share the same nucleus of operative facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

PilePro, LLC v. Chang · filed 2016-01-21(a)

The RICO claims were properly before this Court, and the state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and civil conspiracy, were part of the same nucleus of operative facts permitting this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Houston v. United States · filed 2016-02-03(a)

But the claims against Qualitest are part of the “same case or controversy” as the claims against the United States—that Houston developed SJS after taking allopurinol—and thus the claims fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires counterclaims to form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within original jurisdiction; a generalized connection among unrelated claims is insufficient.

Cruz v. Don Pancho Market, LLC · filed 2016-03-08(a)

A generalized theory with respect to alleged “repeated [unrelated] attempts to pilfer money” does not suffice to satisfy the case and controversy requirement.

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

Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · filed 2016-04-12(a)

Because the subject matter of both cases arose from the same underlying basis, the federal district court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Asarco’s state- law claims in Asarco I.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, even after the federal claim is dismissed.

Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C. · filed 2016-07-26(a)

It is clear from the instant record that Heinsohn’s state law claim under the TCHRA is part of the same case or controversy as her now-dismissed federal law claim under the FMLA, so supplemental jurisdiction does exist. C&S, on remand, should be allowed to amend its complaint to assert supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, even after the federal claim is dismissed.

Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C. · filed 2016-08-09(a)

It is clear from the instant record that Heinsohn’s state law claim under the TCHRA is part of the same case or controversy as her now-dismissed federal law claim under the FMLA, so supplemental jurisdiction does exist. C&S, on remand, should be allowed to amend its complaint to assert supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over noncontract counterclaims that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as claims within the court’s original admiralty jurisdiction.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Speedboat Racing Ltd. · filed 2016-08-09(a)

The remaining two non-contract counterclaims, as proposed by Rambler, arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts which pertain to the formation and breach of the Agreement. ... The Court thus possesses supplemental jm risdiction over the non-contract claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Clemmons v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2017-03-02(a)

Here, Plaintiffs’ state-law claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts. Accordingly, the district court would have had supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Lohr v. Gilman · filed 2017-03-30(a)

The court has determined that Plaintiff has adequately alleged a federal securities fraud, claim against Defendants Gilman, OMG, Wavetech, and the Mintons in Claim 1. Thus, the court may exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that it finds are “so related to claims in the action ... that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Shaw v. One West Bank, FSB · filed 2017-03-31(a)

Even so, the NDGA has supplemental jurisdiction over the portion of the case dealing with the LSA due to it being “so related . . . that [it is] part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) requires a state-law counterclaim to share a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claim; a conversion claim unrelated to the hours worked or wages owed in an FLSA claim does not qualify.

Molnoski v. Batmasian · filed 2017-03-31(a)

Since Defendants’ counterclaim does not arise under federal question or diversity jurisdiction, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction depends on whether the counterclaim is “part of the same case or controversy” as required for - supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The Court finds that Defendants’ counterclaim does not arise from a common nucleus of operative facts and is not a compulsory counterclaim. ... Moreover, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

Carter v. Pallante · filed 2017-06-09(a)

Carter’s state law claims, in turn, arise from the same case or controversy, and the Court may therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Holt v. Griffin · filed 2017-07-28(a)

This use of § 1367(a) was proper because the state law claims were part of the same Article III case or controversy as the federal RICO claim, and the parties do not argue otherwise.

Section 1367(a) requires claims to form part of the same Article III case or controversy; a rule that potentially matters to both claims does not by itself satisfy that requirement.

Cook County Republican Party v. Sapone · filed 2017-09-07(a)

But 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) limits the supplemental jurisdiction to events “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdic- tion that they form part of the same case or controversy un- der Article III of the United States Constitution.” The Party’s claim against the Board demanded the inclusion on the bal- lot of a candidate for the House of Representatives in No- vember 2016. The Party’s claim against Sapone and Tenuta denies that all elected ward committeemen must be seated on the Party’s central committee. The validity of the Party’s rule potentially matters to both claims, but they are not re- motely a single case or controversy under Article III.

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

Zhao v. Keuka College · filed 2017-09-07(a)

The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction extends to Plaintiffs state law claims, because those claims arise out of the same controversy as the § 1981 claim—the alleged discriminatory action by Defendants in denying Plaintiff tenure.

Section 1367(a) requires state law claims to be sufficiently related to claims within original jurisdiction to support supplemental jurisdiction.

Sanjeev Lath v. Manchester Police Department, Gerard Dufresne, BMS CAT, and Amica Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2017-10-19(a)

That is because those claims are not sufficiently related to Lath’s claims against the two defendants that would remain in the case (BMS CAT and Amica Mutual Insurance Company) to provide a basis for supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Rush v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n · filed 2017-12-01(a)

The district court had original jurisdiction over Britt’s Title VII and Rush’s § 1981 claims under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C.' § 1331, and had supplemental jurisdiction over their DCHRA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because those claims form part of the same case or controversy as their federal claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that does not form part of the same case or controversy as the claim supporting original jurisdiction.

McKinney v. United States · filed 2018-01-30(a)

However, to the extent Plaintiff could state a claim against Verizon based on Verizon’s apparent release of her phone number for re- use after her contract expired in 2015, we are not persuaded that the release or transfer of her phone number “form[ed] part of the same case or controversy” as the V.A.’s earlier alleged retaliation against her, and we therefore are not persuaded that the district court could or should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Zell v. Ricci · filed 2018-03-30(a)

As a threshold matter, Count V of Plaintiff's complaint, directed solely at Defendants Council and CRSD, is not so related to Plaintiff's other claims to comprise part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Tejada v. Littlecity Realty LLC · filed 2018-04-10(a)

The common nucleus of underlying facts, between the federal discrimination claim and the city overcharge claim, supports supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a Puerto Rico law counterclaim when it is so related to the federal claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Dish Network LLC v. Llinas · filed 2018-04-20(a)

Exercise of this Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the abuse of process claim, a cause of action rooted in Puerto Rico law, is appropriate. The abuse of process claim is "so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy."

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law counterclaim when its facts are part of the same case or controversy as a claim within original federal jurisdiction.

Nelson v. Repossessors, Inc. · filed 2018-04-20(a)

As stated above, a central issue in this case is the ownership of the vehicle at the time of repossession, and facts related to the counterclaim against Nelson are part of “the same case or controversy” as required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims sharing the same operative facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction when no statutory exception applies.

Cont'l 332 Fund, LLC v. Albertelli · filed 2018-06-11(a)

Here, Count 1 arises under the RICO Act, thereby providing the Court with original jurisdiction. All the other claims stem from the same set of operative facts, and no exceptions to subject matter jurisdiction apply. Defendants' argument fails.

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

Glennon v. Rosenblum · filed 2018-07-03(a)

Ms. Rosenblum's publication of the false story to which the image was attached is the basic factual nucleus underlying each of Ms. Glennon's state law tort claims. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 14-18). Consequently, the state law claims are sufficiently related to the federal law claim for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim to enforce an implementation agreement when it forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim to enforce the underlying hearing officer decision.

Lejeune v. Khepera Charter Sch. · filed 2018-08-29(a)

When claims are inextricably intertwined in this manner, the Court may exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to decide both claims in one forum. A claim to enforce the Hearing Officer's decision necessarily forms "part of the same case or controversy" as a claim to enforce the Implementation Agreement.

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

Folk v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC · filed 2018-09-21(a)

Because the remaining state law claims are part of the same case or controversy, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction only over claims within an existing case or controversy; it does not authorize a court to retain jurisdiction when standing is absent.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. v. Bearing Technologies, Ltd. · filed 2018-10-09

Similarly, the Court does not agree that the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides a basis for the Court to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over an issue where standing (and, hence, a case or controversy) is absent. Section 1367 applies to claims that are part of an already- existing case or controversy, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558 (2005), and thus presupposes the existence of a case or controversy. Nothing in its language allows a court to resolve legal issues when a case or controversy is absent.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims involving separate hiring decisions when they are sufficiently related to a federal hiring claim through timing, overlapping decision-makers, evaluation of the same applicant, and the employer’s shared reasons.

McDaniels v. Plymouth-Canton Cmty.. Sch. · filed 2018-11-01(a)

The district court had supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ELCRA claims for all three failures to hire. The Hulsing and Workman claims are sufficiently related to the Gallimore claim. The decisions were made close in time to one another, involved some of the same decision-makers, and involved reviewing McDaniels’s work history and qualifications. Most importantly, PCCS advanced the same non-discriminatory rationales to explain all three decisions. Therefore, we consider all three hiring decisions in reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to PCCS.

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

Burnip v. Credit Acceptance Corporation · filed 2019-03-11(a)

Here, the state law claims and federal securities claims derive from the same factual allegations—Burnip’s purchase of the 2005 Porsche and its alleged repossession. Thus, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a supplemental claim to form part of the same Article III case or controversy as a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Simmons v. Illinois Bell Telephone Compan · filed 2019-03-18(a)

Finally, the “unlawful garnishment” claim is so unrelated to the Title VII claim that it does not “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III” as required for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims because they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Louis v. Legal Sea Foods, LLC · filed 2019-03-19(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the asserted state law claims, as they “form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367, given that the state law claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they share central issues and factual circumstances with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Round to Fit, LLC v. Reimer · filed 2019-03-29(a)

More specifically, because the question of whether R2Fit is the author and initial owner of the copyright over the software code is central to the disposition of R2Fit's state law claims and because both R2Fit's federal and state claims arise from the same factual circumstances, the Court finds that R2Fit's state law claims arise from the same case or controversy-whether R2Fit is the rightful owner of the software code copyright pursuant to the "work made for hire" provisions of the Copyright Act.

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

Riley v. United States of America · filed 2019-05-17(a)

The Court nevertheless concludes that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case because the state-law claims arise from the same illness and events as the FTCA claim, and therefore all claims form part of the same case or controversy.

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

City of Almaty, Kazahkstan v. Ablyazov · filed 2019-05-29(a)

To the extent Khrapunov argues that the proposed new claim does not arise out of the same case or controversy and therefore does not satisfy the test for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), he is mistaken.

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

Bryant v. Hope Credit Union · filed 2019-06-14(a)

The state law claims are so intertwined with the federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy, making exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims proper.

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

Spice v. General Motors Fort Wayne Assembly · filed 2019-07-03(a)

But as General Motors correctly notes, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) since Spice’s “claims all arise out of the same case or controversy.”

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

Robert J. Caluda, APLC v. New Orleans City · filed 2019-07-22(a)

The Court retains jurisdiction over the remaining claims because Plaintiffs’ federal claim against Linebarger and UGSL fall within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, and the state law claims fall within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction because they form part of the same case or controversy.

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

Marmaras v. Marafatsos · filed 2019-07-29(a)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty forms part of the same case or controversy as his federal copyright claim and his state contract claim subject to diversity jurisdiction.

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

Stahl v. Klotz · filed 2019-08-02(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over federal and state claims so long as the various claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction appropriate when state and federal claims “form part of the same case or controversy”). Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the denial of progressive discipline arise from the same facts supporting her federal due process claims. Accordingly, the court finds granting plaintiff leave to amend would not be futile.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim when resolving a federal claim and its defense necessarily brings the facts underlying the counterclaim before the court.

Stefanovic v. Old Heidelberg Corp. · filed 2019-08-08(a)

Because presentation of the federal claim and determination of the twelfth affirmative defense will “necessarily br[ing] the facts underlying the state [counter]claim before the court,” the counterclaim forms part of the same case or controversy as the claims already before the Court and is thus within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

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

White Hall Pharmacy LLC v. Doctor's Orders RX Inc · filed 2019-08-20(a)

At this stage of the litigation, the Court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338; further, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over White Hall Pharmacy’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

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

W.L.,IV v. Scott Zirus, et.al. · filed 2019-09-03(a)

Finally, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action because these claims are part of the same case or controversy as the underlying federal claim.

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

quizinsight.com Partnership v. Tabak · filed 2019-09-04(a)

For the remaining state claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction because those claims “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a claim closely related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction when both form part of the same case or controversy.

Electrical Workers Pension Plan, Local 103 IBEW v. Doe · filed 2019-09-04(a)

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

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Christopher Communities at Southern Highlands Golf Club Home · filed 2019-09-09(a)

First, the Lahrses’ cross claims do not “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” so 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is not grounds for the court to assert jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are not sufficiently related to a remaining federal claim.

Givens v. Loeffler · filed 2019-09-11(a)

The court also agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that plaintiff’s state law claims of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and tortious interference of a business relationship are not “so related” to the remaining Fourth Amendment claim against two of the defendants so as to warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims concerning the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

GITZEN v. S&S, INC. · filed 2019-09-12(a)

Therefore, it has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claims concerning “the same case or controversy.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims are properly before this Court and will not be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state negligence claims unrelated to a federal IDEA claim.

Drain v. Orangeburg Consolidated School District Four · filed 2019-09-16(a)

Because Drain’s gross negligence claims are wholly unrelated to her IDEA claims and not within the original jurisdiction of this court nor its supplemental jurisdiction, this court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within federal-question jurisdiction.

ASHBY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE · filed 2019-09-17(a)

When a federal court has federal question jurisdiction over some claims, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also Hinson v. Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 616 (4th Cir. 2001). Claims are part of the same “case or controversy” when they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact . . . such that [the plaintiff] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). This court is satisfied that the pendant state-law defamation claim against Defendant Stacey I. Young (“Young”) arises from the same nucleus of operative fact — namely, the circumstances surrounding Herrera’s visa denial. Therefore, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same common set of facts as a claim within original federal jurisdiction, and judicial economy can favor hearing them together.

Targetsmart Holdings, LLC v. Ghp Advisors, LLC · filed 2019-09-19(a)

Here, the allegations underlying the remaining common law and Massachusetts statutory claims derive from a common set of facts concerning (1) merger discussions between TargetSmart and GHP; and (2) the alleged acquisition and dissemination of Non-Public Information by GHP and Catalist. Judicial economy counsels in favor of considering these claims in the same lawsuit. The Court concludes that its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining counts is appropriate.

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

Torres v. Ball · filed 2019-09-18(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the North Carolina claims that are part of the same episode as the federal claims that passed initial review.

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

(PC) Vlasich v. Bobbala · filed 2019-09-24(a)

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

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

(PC) Jones v. Placer County Sheriff's Office · filed 2019-10-08(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Ireland v. White · filed 2019-10-08(a)

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

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

Connectors Realty Group Corporation, The v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company · filed 2019-10-09(a)

Given that these claims do not “form part of the same case or controversy” as those on behalf of Connectors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nash’s state law claims.

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

Lai v. H20 Tanning & Nails, LLC · filed 2019-10-09(a)

Plaintiff’s claim that he was retaliated against for failing to serve alcohol is sufficiently related to his age discrimination claim to form “part of the same case or controversy,” and therefore, to the extent a state law claim arises from that allegation, the Court assumes supplemental jurisdiction of that claim.

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

(PC) Young v. Diaz · filed 2019-10-17(a)

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

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

Taylor, II v. McKay · filed 2019-10-25(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it involves the same facts as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) covers Puerto Rico law claims that are so related to federal Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Montalvo-Figueroa v. DNA Auto Corp. · filed 2019-11-05(a)

The Court is also satisfied that Montalvo’s claims pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are “so related” to her claims pursuant to Title VII and the Equal Pay Act “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

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

(PC) Smith v. Janam · filed 2019-11-27(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over Arizona employment claims that are sufficiently related to federal FLSA claims to form part of the same case or controversy.

Tolano v. El Rio Bakery · filed 2019-12-02(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under Arizona law because those claims are so substantially related to Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims that they form part of the same “case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising from the same circumstances as a surviving claim within the court's original jurisdiction.

Hinojosa v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP · filed 2019-12-11(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 under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Both claims involve the same circumstances and so both survive this Motion.

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

(PC) Newsome v. Loterzstain · filed 2019-12-19(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Kiner v. Yang · filed 2019-12-19(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state False Claims Act claims based on the same facts as federal False Claims Act claims.

United States Ex Rel. Schneider v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-12-22(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the State-law counts under the State False Claims Acts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... State-law claims are State False Claims Act claims based on the same facts as the Federal False Claims Act claims, specifically false claims regarding compliance with the National Mortgage Settlement.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over medical malpractice claims against a hospital when they arise from the same case or controversy as FTCA claims against the United States.

Willis v. USA · filed 2020-01-27(a)

Because subject matter jurisdiction is proper over Defendant United States of America, the Court further finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over Memorial Hospital, as the claims against it stem from the same case or controversy as the claims against Defendant United States of America.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims arising from the same employment as a federal age-discrimination claim.

Pastene v. Long Cove Club of HHI, S.C. · filed 2020-01-27(a)

The Court also had supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which on the face of the complaint arose out of Mr. Pastene’s employment by the Long Cove Club.

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

(PC) Tanksley v. Sacramento County Jail · filed 2020-02-06(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Hodge v. Taylor · filed 2020-02-10(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Coons v. Leach · filed 2020-02-11(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits state-law allegations that are sufficiently related to federal allegations to form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Gould v. Smith · filed 2020-02-12(a)

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

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

(PC) Washington v. Spearman · filed 2020-02-12(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims alleging breaches of the same agreement and seeking to invalidate the note and guarantees that the original diversity action seeks to enforce.

Rush Air Sports, LLC v. RDJ Group Holdings, LLC · filed 2020-02-14(a)

Given that the FACC concerns 12 breaches relating to the Bakersfield APA, and Cross-Complainants’ declaratory relief claim seeks, in 13 part, a “[j]udgment declaring and adjudging that the Note and the Guaranty are null and void and are 14 rescinded” (Doc. No. 40 at 17), the court finds the claims in the FACC are “so related to the claims” in 15 the original complaint such “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same operative facts as the federal claims and therefore forming part of the same case or controversy.

Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Roe · filed 2020-02-14(a)

The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims arise from the same set of operative facts and therefore form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367 does not require a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law property damage claim involving different issues and defendants than the remaining federal claims.

SOUCY v. SERGEANT THOMAS AVERILL · filed 2020-02-24(a)

... and because the property damage involves different issues and defendants than the remaining federal claims, the court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a state law claim.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law employment claims related to federal employment discrimination claims as part of the same case or controversy.

Yadav v. Frost Bank · filed 2020-02-25(a)

Because of this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction over Yadav’s federal employment discrimination claims, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over his related state- law claims of retaliatory discharge, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same employment-separation events as a contract claim completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.

Watkins v. Woodridge Productions, Inc. · filed 2020-02-27(a)

To the extent that Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims are not subject to preemption, the Court nonetheless has supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See Opp. 11. Watkins bases all of his causes of action on a specific set of events that took place at the time of his separation from employment with Defendants. See generally FAC. Those claims are sufficiently related to Plaintiffs’ contract claims to form part of the same “case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP · filed 2020-02-27(a)

While Plaintiff is correct that the state court has jurisdiction over the state law claims (see Pl.’s Reply at 4), the federal court also has jurisdiction over the state law claims, given Plaintiff's inclusion of federal law claims. “[l]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article Ill of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a defamation claim forming part of the same case or controversy as a federal Lanham Act claim when no reason exists to decline its exercise.

Emrit v. National Football League · filed 2020-02-28(a), (c)

Because Plaintiff’s defamation claim is “part of the same case or controversy” as his Lanham Act claim, supplemental jurisdiction exists over that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Further, there is no reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count I. See § 1367(c).

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

Snowden v. Henning · filed 2020-03-09(a)

A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are “so related to [the federal claims] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The battery claim against Agent Henning arises from the same facts as the excessive force claim, and the allegations articulate a claim against Agent Henning.

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

(PC) Smith v. Grove · filed 2020-03-10(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law battery claim arising from the same case or controversy as a Title VII claim when no statutory ground for declining jurisdiction is established.

Richardson v. Bertram's Salmon River Brewery, LLC · filed 2020-03-19(a), (c)

However, the battery claim is not only part of the same case or controversy as the Title VII claim but is central to Plaintiff’s argument that the assault occurred as a result of a pattern of discriminatory conduct permitted at Bertram’s Brewery. As such, Picanzo has failed to establish the required factual predicate. What’s more, the Court finds it to be in the interest of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against Picanzo. For these reasons, the Court will deny Picanzo’s motion to dismiss the state law claims.

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

(PC) Curry v. Sessions · filed 2020-03-26(a)

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

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

A.K.B. v. Independent School District 194 · filed 2020-03-26(a)

As for Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim against both Defendants, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over this state-law claim because the Court has jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are part of the same case or controversy as the claims that fall within the court’s original jurisdiction.

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

Larson v. Perry · filed 2020-03-27(a)

The court found further that once the court’s jurisdiction as to Count VIII is established, subject-matter jurisdiction extends to the remaining claims since they form part of the same case or controversy.

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

(PC) Blackshire v. Sacramento County Sherriff · filed 2020-04-06(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Turner v. Baughman · filed 2020-04-06(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC)Barth v. Turner · filed 2020-04-06(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Johnson v. Ruiz · filed 2020-04-10(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

Marchant v. Corporal Mendenhall · filed 2020-04-10(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when they are “so related” to the federal claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... The Court will permit Plaintiff to proceed against Corporal Mendenhall under a state law battery theory, but Plaintiff will need to provide sufficient evidence that he complied with the provisions of the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), Idaho Code § 6-901, et seq., should Defendant assert that he did not.

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

Ross v. Dejarnetti · filed 2020-04-16(a)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claim is related to the federal copyright claims and therefore form part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claim.

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

(PC) Garcia v. Jones · filed 2020-04-17(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Smith v. Singh · filed 2020-04-17(a)

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

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same occurrences as federal claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Mestayer v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-04-17(a)

These state law claims arise from the same occurrences that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ federal claims. As a result, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law medical negligence claims arising from the same alleged inadequate care as federal deliberate-indifference claims.

Page, Emmanuel v. Hoffman · filed 2020-04-22(a)

Jurisdiction is proper over these claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), which states that “district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

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

(PC) Manafov v. Rosario · filed 2020-04-22(a)

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

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

(PC) Harbor v. CDCR · filed 2020-04-22(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Florence v. Beards · filed 2020-04-22(a)

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