28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once federal claims are resolved on a pretrial motion.

Fersner v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD · filed 2001-04-11(c)(3)

It is the general rule in this circuit that once federal claims have been finally resolved on pre-trial motion, supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims should be declined. ... I shall, therefore, dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for supplemental state law claims to be dismissed without prejudice when all federal claims are eliminated before trial.

Mawhirt v. Ahmed · filed 2001-05-17(c)(3)

Nonetheless, a district court should generally dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice where all federal law claims are eliminated before trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial; the state law claims ordinarily should be dismissed as well.

AES CORP. v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 2001-08-02(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the court should dismiss the state law claims as well, for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. ... Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas state law claims asserted by AES.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, ordinarily dismissing the state claims without prejudice absent circumstances favoring retention.

Eads Ex Rel. Eads v. Unified School District No. 289 · filed 2002-01-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the plaintiffs state law claims against the defendant.

Section 1367(c) favors relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when no circumstance rebuts the presumption favoring relinquishment.

Shea v. Winnebago County Sherriff's Office · filed 2019-11-14(c)

Because none of the identified circumstances that may displace the presumption exist, the court will exercise its discretion and follow the general presumption in favor of relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C.§ 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when no circumstances favor retaining jurisdiction.

Ryan v. Blackwell · filed 2019-11-18(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal law claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed before trial when refiling remains available, substantial judicial resources have not been committed to the state claim, and its resolution is not clearly apparent.

Carter v. Illinois Gaming Board · filed 2019-11-25(c)(3)

None of the exceptions apply here. First, if this court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, Illinois law would give Carter one year to refile the claim in state court if the limitations period expired while the case was pending here. See Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 515 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-217); Davis v. Cook Cnty., 534 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2008) (same). Second, as this case is at the pleading stage, substantial federal judicial resources have not yet been committed to the state law claim. And third, it is not clearly apparent how the state law claim will be resolved. Given all this, relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claim is the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits dismissal of remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when no independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Levy v. Aaron Faber, Inc. · filed 1993-04-13(c)(3)

Absent the federal RICO and securities fraud claims, I dismiss the remaining claims in the amended complaint because this court apparently lacks any further basis for jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state claims when all federal claims are dismissed early in the litigation and no independent basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Cromer Ex Rel. Martin v. Lounsbury Chiropractic Offices, Inc. · filed 1994-10-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Lanham Act claims for lack of standing at an early stage of the litigation, the supplemental state claims should likewise be dismissed in the absence of an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims and no independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Bender v. Suburban Hospital · filed 1998-03-25(c)(3)

Additionally, in the absence of an independent basis for jurisdiction, the court will not exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law counts.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed if no independent basis for federal jurisdiction is properly pleaded.

Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co. · filed 2000-06-21

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ RICO cause of action, lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over these cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the citizenship of the parties, as alleged in the complaint, may allow this Court to retain the UCL claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If diversity jurisdiction were properly pled by Plaintiffs, the pendent state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would become diversity claims. This Court, therefore, dismisses the state law claims herewith with leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the filing of this Order to amend the complaint. Upon expiration of the 30 days without proper amendment, these claims shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and the Clerk shall close the file.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the federal claims when no independent basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Cordero v. Turabo Medical Center Partnership · filed 2001-10-24(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under Puer-to Rico law.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of pendent state-law claims after all federal claims have been resolved when no independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Rossignol v. Voorhaar · filed 2002-02-21(c)(3)

Finally, having disposed of all of Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court finds that it has no independent basis for jurisdiction over Plaintiffs pendant state claims. Therefore, Counts 4-6 of the Complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been eliminated.

Mills v. Re/Max Heritage · filed 2004-02-13(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2004). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining CFEPA claim (Count One).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims after it disposes of the federal claims.

Burrell v. Anderson · filed 2005-01-13(c)(3)

I DENY the City defendants judgment on their counterclaims ... and decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly the counterclaim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the claims within its original jurisdiction no longer proceed, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Alba v. Housing Authority of City of Pittston · filed 2005-11-23(c)(3)

However, since Plaintiff's claims over which we have original jurisdiction are not going to proceed, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s PHRA claims. Thus, these claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when it resolves the federal claims in the defendants’ favor.

Myers v. County of Somerset · filed 2007-06-11(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Myers’s state claims in view of the impending judgment in the defendants’ favor on the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claim no longer supplies original jurisdiction.

Hauk v. JP Morgan Chase Bank USA · filed 2009-01-23(c)(3)

As a federal claim no longer gives rise to subject matter jurisdiction, we recognize that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no federal claims remain.

Tokh v. Water Tower Court Home Owners Ass'n · filed 2009-05-01(c)(3)

But the court did not decide the motion on the merits; instead it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because there were no remaining federal claims. ... The court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction was not an abuse of its discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Fostill Lake Builders, LLC v. Tudor Insurance Co. · filed 2011-03-29(c)(3)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has disposed of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Federal district courts, however, may also retain jurisdiction and decide the state-law claims on their merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them to state court after the federal claims have been disposed of.

Aery v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2017-08-17(c)(3)

So too here. Particularly in light of the dismissal without prejudice of the claims against Sheriff Glanz in his individual capacity, we think there are sufficient questions as to the merits of the state-law claims against the Board that those issues now belong in state court. We therefore direct the district court to remand the state-law claims against the Board back to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are eliminated, and to remand those claims when the case was removed from state court.

Palmer v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

Based on the foregoing circumstances, and with the consent of all parties, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims, which now represent the sum total of plaintiff’s causes of action asserted against defendants herein. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim … if … the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Because remand, rather than dismissal, of these state-law claims is appropriate in the removal context where the federal court declines supplemental jurisdiction, plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc. 4) is granted.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claim ends when judicial economy and convenience favor retention.

Hogan v. The InStore Group, LLC · filed 2021-01-11(c)(3)

In the exercise of my discretion, I find that it serves the interests of judicial economy and the convenience of the parties for me to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims after granting summary judgment on all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. L'Oreal USA · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

While the Court grants summary judgment on the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, as well as the state law claims governed under the same standards, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s NYCHRL claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice to filing in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily calls for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial, absent a factor favoring retention.

Hanks v. Hubbard · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

The “usual practice” with respect to claims falling under the supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, is to relinquish jurisdiction when all federal claims have been resolved short of trial. Hagan v. Quinn, 867 F.3d 816, 830 (7th Cir. 2017); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We see no factor that cuts against that presumption here, and we therefore modify the judgment to clarify that the state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, with judicial economy and the loss of the federal claim informing that choice.

Greer v. Trinity Financial Services, LLC · filed 2022-06-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims if the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court considers the extinguishment of Plaintiff’s anchoring federal law claim to be of paramount importance in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. The current conditions of judicial economy favor a halt in supplemental jurisdiction over a case in which federal law has no role. As such, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Consequently, the remainder of Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been eliminated, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

LAWLESS v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-07-12(c)(3)

This Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remand the matter to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claims remain, especially early in the case.

Greenwell v. Preslar's Western Shop · filed 2023-02-16(c)(3)

Because the Amended Complaint only asserts state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it resolves all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Verde v. Pasco County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-03-08(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims arising from the same facts as federal claims even after the federal claims fail, particularly when substantial resources have already been spent on the case.

Uttarwar v. Lazard Asset Management LLC · filed 2024-03-22(a)

Although Uttarwar has no federal claim that survives summary judgment, his claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL arise from the same facts and rely on the same evidence as his federal claims, “and as a result, this Court retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.” Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 247, 267 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), aff’d, 371 F. App’x 115 (2d Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “Given the substantial resources already expended by the parties in developing, and the Court in reviewing, the voluminous factual record and the numerous legal arguments in this case, the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendent claims is warranted.” Fleming, 644 F. Supp. 2d at 267.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving the federal claims.

Nowels v. Moore · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

Finally, because the Court has resolved Nowels’ federal claims, the Court will relinquish jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to administrative proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc. · filed 2002-03-26(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction exercised by Federal courts does not apply to administrative proceedings such as those before the Board. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and (b) (“in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction….” (emphasis added)).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against non-debtor defendants when those claims form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the district court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Allen v. Kuhlman Corp. · filed 2005-03-15(a)

Regardless of whether the claims against all the non-debtor defendants fall within this court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction, it is indisputable that the claims against these defendants “form part of the same case or controversy” and “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” so as to meet the demands of § 1367(a) and Article III.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming part of the same case or controversy as core bankruptcy claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sergent v. McKinstry ex rel. BD Unsecured Creditors Trust · filed 2012-03-21(a)

The Sergent Claims are therefore part of the same case or controversy as “any civil action over which the district courts have original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which includes bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court hearing a bankruptcy adversary proceeding to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

NVF Co. v. New Castle County · filed 2002-04-18(a)

While some courts have noted that the plain meaning of § 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to bankruptcy courts, the court notes that it, as a district court, does have jurisdiction under that provision.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims when a claim arising under Title 11 provides original jurisdiction under § 1334(b).

Rahl v. Bande · filed 2004-07-28(a)

Because we have jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to § 1334(b), we also have supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in the Complaint.

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming part of the same case or controversy as claims within their original bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334(b).

Hospitality Ventures/LaVista v. Heartwood 11, L.L.C. (In Re Hospitality Ventures/LaVista) · filed 2007-01-04(a)

Subject to these exceptions, § 1367(a) applies, by its terms, unless “expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute,” so long as the claims otherwise outside the court’s original jurisdiction “form part of the same case or controversy” as those within its original jurisdiction. Notably, § 1367 contains no exception to a district court’s supplemental jurisdiction when its bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334 is the source of its original jurisdiction, and § 1334 itself does not expressly exclude the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, a district court with bankruptcy jurisdiction of claims under § 1334(b) has supplemental jurisdiction of claims otherwise outside that jurisdiction if the latter claims are part of the same “case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction to district courts but does not authorize bankruptcy courts to exercise it.

Matter of Walker · filed 1995-05-08(a)

While § 1367 addressed the power of the district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it did not discuss the power of the bankruptcy courts to reach pendent parties. ... Because there is no Congressional statute conferring upon the bankruptcy courts the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, we find no error in the district court's conclusion that the bankruptcy court did not have the power to hear Cadle's contribution claim against Svara.

Section 1367(b) treats an intervenor as a plaintiff only when the intervenor aligns with an original plaintiff, regardless of how the intervenor labels its claims.

Conseco v. Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc. · filed 2002-04-26(b)

As stated previously “plaintiff’ in § 1367(b) means an original plaintiff or a party intervening on the side of an original plaintiff.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a party that opted out of a class action merely because it is affiliated with a settling class member.

Abbott Laboratories, Zeneca, Inc., and Merck & Co., Inc. v. Cvs Pharmacy, Inc., Cvs Corp., and Cvs Revco D.S., Inc. · filed 2002-05-15(a)

If parties that have opted out could be dragged back in under the supplemental jurisdiction, a core function of Rule 23(b) would be nullified. So whatever scope may be left, after Peacock, for the adjudication of claims by or against third parties other than attorneys, that power cannot be asserted against an entity that has opted out of a class action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims without an independent jurisdictional basis when the pleadings present a substantial federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Hanjin Shipping Co. · filed 2002-06-14(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) permits the court to hear claims lacking an independent jurisdictional basis, so long as there is a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction. When § 1367(a) original jurisdiction is based on a federal question, the same rule of substantiality applies.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when no federal claim exists to support them.

Allstate Insurance v. Quick · filed 2002-12-03(a)

The Court has considered but rejected the notion that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) might give it supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Quick on the basis that they are part of the "same case or controversy” as the civil action against the United States. The defect in this notion is that at any given time, there has been only one set of claims, be it entirely federal in nature, as the United States argued, or entirely state in nature, as pled by McKee and as the Court has determined in finding that Quick acted outside the scope of her employment. The key point to be made is that at no single point in time did there exist both federal and state claims, such that the latter could be deemed "supplemental” to the former, and inherent in this observation is the fact that there is no federal claim at present to which the claims against McKee can be deemed "supplemental.”

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and city law claims when a federal claim remains before it.

Kavowras v. The New York Times Co. And Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union · filed 2003-05-01

Because the court continues to have jurisdiction over a federal claim and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, we vacate the dismissal of the claims under city and state law.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a federal claim remains pending.

Parsley v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO DEPT. OF PUBLIC · filed 2006-10-03(a)

Inasmuch as plaintiffs FMLA interference claim is not subject to dismissal, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits continued supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims when a federal claim survives dismissal.

Lopez-Rosario v. Programa Seasonal Head Start · filed 2015-10-27(a)

Because the pleading of the ADEA claim has survived defendants’ sole challenge to it, the court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Puerto Rico law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when there is no related federal claim.

Sroga v. Laboda · filed 2019-01-16(a)

And because there is no “related” federal claim to trigger a district court’s supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), dismissal of the entire action was proper.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when no federal claim has been asserted to which it could be related.

BAKER v. ESTES · filed 2019-07-10(a)

However, because Plaintiff has not asserted a federal claim, there is no federal claim to which the state law claim would be related for purposes of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no viable federal claim supplies original jurisdiction.

Wilson v. City of Orangeburg · filed 2019-08-07

Causes of action based on state law generally may only be heard in federal court where there is diversity of citizenship among the parties or if there is supplemental jurisdiction based on other viable federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (setting parameters of supplemental jurisdiction). Because Plaintiff has not shown the court has diversity or federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s state law causes of action are subject to summary dismissal.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims requires a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

(PC) Hewitt v. Board of Parole Hearings · filed 2019-10-25(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims requires a predicate federal claim based on the same allegations supporting original jurisdiction.

HOLT v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2019-11-04(a)

Thus the state claims could only be brought in this Court pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which requires a predicate federal claim based on the same allegations made in an attempt to invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). There being no federal claim, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over state claims and accordingly will not screen Mr. Holt’s complaint for potential state law claims.

Under § 1367, a court may decline to screen state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

(PC) Turner, Jr. v. Salorio · filed 2020-01-28(a)

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

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no valid federal claim has been asserted.

Harrison v. Christiansen · filed 2020-04-07(a)

Since Plaintiff has asserted no valid federal claim, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claim, if any exists.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are facially insufficient and no federal claims remain.

New Horizon Home Care, LLC v. Northeastern Nevada Regional Hospital · filed 2020-05-20

As the Court finds the federal antitrust claims facially insufficient, there are no remaining federal claims that would allow for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) requires a cognizable federal claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims premised on that claim.

Marshall v. Farmer · filed 2020-05-27(a)

As to any purported state law claims alleged in the Complaint, while the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff sufficiently pleads a federal claim.

Contreras v. Mote · filed 2020-07-13(a)

Plaintiff is also advised that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court will only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims if he is able to sufficiently plead his claims under the federal constitution in any amended complaint.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the complaint also pleads a related claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; it does not create an independent cause of action.

Robbins v. Evers · filed 2020-07-20(a)

However, section 1367 does not create an independent cause of action and may be invoked only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

A court may decline to screen state law claims under § 1367 when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Leal v. Muzuka · filed 2020-07-21(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. In the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to individually screen Plaintiff’s purported state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Rouser v. Crounse · filed 2020-08-24(a)

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the complaint also pleads related federal claims; it does not create an independent cause of action.

Hall v. Townsend · filed 2020-08-24(a)

Section 1367 does not create an independent cause of action. Rather, § 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the complaint also pleads related federal claims; it does not create an independent cause of action.

Amadi v. King · filed 2020-08-29(a)

Section 1367 does not create an independent cause of action. Rather, § 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims requires a cognizable federal claim; when the complaint states none, the state claims fail.

(PC) Martinez v. Brown · filed 2020-09-03

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. In this instance, the Court fails to find any cognizable federal claims in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims fail.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Solorio v. Sullivan · filed 2020-09-25(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.

Supplemental state law claims must be anchored to timely federal claims; they cannot proceed alone when the federal claims are untimely.

Byerly v. Bandit Task Force · filed 2020-10-13

However, Plaintiff’s state law causes of action are supplemental jurisdiction claims that must be anchored to timely federal claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Ioane v. Merlak · filed 2020-10-14

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. In this instance the Court fails to find that Plaintiff can state cognizable federal claims in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims fail and should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend.

Section 1367 requires a federal claim in the operative complaint to support supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Greer v. Fox Corporation · filed 2020-10-14

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also alleges that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, pursuant to under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Am. Compl. ¶ 86), but the Amended Complaint does not allege any federal claims to serve as a basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 does not sustain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Ramirez v. CDCR - California Corrections · filed 2020-10-21

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. In this instance, the Court fails to find any cognizable federal claims in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims fail.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Popovich v. Igbinosa · filed 2020-11-05

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) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state claims absent a federal claim.

Ripple Labs Inc. v. YouTube LLC · filed 2020-11-20(a)

Absent a federal claim, the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when a federal claim is properly before the district court.

Lyons v. William Morris, Jr. · filed 2021-02-03(a)

But a district court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims unless a federal claim is also “properly brought” before it.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the action includes a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Creamer v. Sherer · filed 2021-02-10(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims when the complaint states no plausible federal claim to support jurisdiction.

MOLSON v. WHITE · filed 2021-03-09(a)

But claims such as these must proceed in state court, as the parties do not have diverse citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. §1332, and there is no plausible basis upon which the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if there is a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PC)Arceo v. Tetreault · filed 2021-03-22

However, although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff first has a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PC) Sanford v. Eaton · filed 2021-03-29(a)

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

Section 1367 requires a cognizable federal claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Harris v. Fresno County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-04-15(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff first must have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, which, for the reasons explained above, he does not.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim only if the plaintiff states a viable federal constitutional claim.

Earls, Fairly v. Buske, Kari · filed 2021-04-29(a)

Earls also seeks to bring a claim under Wisconsin law for negligence, but this court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim only if Earls states a viable constitutional claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to defer screening related state law claims when the plaintiff has not stated a cognizable federal claim.

Anderson v. Amazon.Com, Inc. · filed 2021-05-18(a)

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

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims only when the action includes a valid federal claim.

(PS) Siratsamy v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Department · filed 2021-06-01(a)

Moreover, at this time there are no valid federal claims asserted, so the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if the plaintiff first has a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PC) Miller v. Commissioner of the State of California Department of Corrections · filed 2021-06-09(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

A court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under § 1367 when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

(PC)Frisby v. State of California · filed 2021-07-15(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. In this instance, the Court fails to find any cognizable federal claims in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims fail.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the complaint also pleads a related federal claim.

House v. University of Maryland Medical Center · filed 2021-08-25(a)

Rather, § 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in a federal-question case only if the plaintiff states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Turner v. Gibson · filed 2021-09-08(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims tied to a viable federal claim; without such a claim, those state law claims lack that basis for federal jurisdiction.

DeRocha v. Crouse Hospital · filed 2021-09-08(a)

The Court also agrees with Magistrate Judge Lovric that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining New York state claims. Federal courts may decide state law claims if they are supplemental to a federal claim or brought under diversity jurisdiction and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), 1332. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lovric that Plaintiff neither established a viable federal claim nor claimed diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) White v. Krantz · filed 2021-09-16

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. In this instance, the Court fails to find any cognizable federal claims in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims fail.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PC) Spencer v. Jasso · filed 2021-09-20

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint asserts no valid federal claim.

(PS) Durlin v. Robinson · filed 2021-10-12(a)

However, at this time there are no valid federal claims asserted, so the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint fails to state a cognizable federal claim.

Redick v. Sonora Police Department · filed 2021-10-12(a)

Even if Plaintiff could not meet the defamation-plus standard but was able to demonstrate defamation under California law, the Court would also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state claim because Plaintiff failed to state a separate cognizable federal claim, as explained herein.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the proposed complaint fails to state any federal-law claim.

White Eagle v. Washington State Department of Corrections · filed 2021-10-15

However, because plaintiff has failed to state any federal law claims in her proposed complaint, the Court would not have supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when a cognizable federal claim supports original jurisdiction.

Koresko v. Cook · filed 2021-10-21(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. In the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to address any purported state law claims.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the complaint states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Robins v. Ramirez · filed 2021-10-27

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Bennett v. Sheehy Ford of Marlow Heights, Maryland · filed 2021-11-08(a)

Rather, § 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Section 1367(a) cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a plaintiff amends the complaint to remove the only federal claim.

Hutto v. Regional Management Corp · filed 2021-11-09(a)

After the amendment, there are no federal claims to which supplemental jurisdiction could attach and support jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367 requires a cognizable federal claim before a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Woodroffe v. Campa · filed 2021-11-10(a)

To the extent Woodroffe attempts to bring additional claims against all defendants pursuant to state law, the Court notes that it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims, but that Woodroffe must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. ... As explained above, Woodroffe fails to assert a cognizable claim under federal law. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a cognizable federal claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

(PS) Selck v. VOA (Volunteers of America) · filed 2021-11-12(a)

In order to invoke supplemental jurisdiction here, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law—something the present complaint lacks.

A court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if the plaintiff first states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Reynolds v. Cisneros · filed 2022-02-17

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. Here, the Court fails to find any cognizable federal claims in the Complaint.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Daniels v. Baer · filed 2022-03-24

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. In this instance, the Court fails to find any cognizable federal claims in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims fail.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim.

Williams v. Vista · filed 2022-04-01(a)

Even if Plaintiff was able to demonstrate intentional inflection of emotional distress, the Court would also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state claim because Plaintiff failed to state a separate cognizable federal claim, as explained above.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when there is no viable federal claim in the case.

Steed, Robert v. Huneke · filed 2022-04-08

Steed does not have a viable federal claim so I cannot exercise jurisdiction under § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim without a valid federal claim.

(PS) Bledsoe v. Zuckerberg · filed 2022-04-28(a)

Finally, without a valid federal claim, there also can be no supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim plaintiff might attempt to assert in this action.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the action also contains a valid federal claim.

(PC) Hernandez v. Covello · filed 2022-05-02

The court can only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where the action also contains valid federal law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As it was found above that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim and there are no other valid federal law claims, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim for relief.

Sanders v. JD Home Rentals · filed 2022-06-08

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff first must have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, which, for the reasons explained above, he does not. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, the Court will not address the viability of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff first states a cognizable federal claim.

Williams v. Messa · filed 2022-06-10(a)

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

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

Williams v. The People of the State of California · filed 2022-06-13(a)

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

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, but this court requires a cognizable federal claim before considering them.

Lim v. Miller · filed 2022-06-17(a)

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

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the court has original jurisdiction, but requires a cognizable federal claim before the court will consider those state-law claims.

Maez v. Maez · filed 2022-07-29(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the court has original jurisdiction, but a court may decline to exercise it when no cognizable federal claim remains.

Lim v. Miller · filed 2022-08-24(a)

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert state law claims, the Court declines to screen them in the absence of a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, and will recommend that the district court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims only when the complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Fancey v. Berkey · filed 2022-09-15(a)

Rather, § 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a related federal anchor claim for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence claims.

Boggs v. PrimeCare Medical Inc. · filed 2022-09-30(a)

Second, if Boggs is attempting to assert state-law negligence claims only, this Court would have no jurisdiction to hear them without a related federal anchor claim. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no related federal claim supplies original jurisdiction.

MG Victoria Arbors apartments SLM LLC v. Ames · filed 2022-10-12(a)

Lastly, because there is no federal law that relates to MG Victoria’s state law claim, there is no supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim only when the plaintiff first states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Diaz v. Lynch · filed 2022-10-17(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. Thus, in order to pursue his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against defendant Torcedo, plaintiff must first state a cognizable federal civil rights claim against Torcedo for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Plaintiff failed to do so.

Section 1367 does not create a cause of action and permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the complaint also pleads a federal claim.

Jennings v. Stokes · filed 2022-11-21(a)

Section 1367 does not create an independent cause of action. Rather, § 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if the plaintiff first states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Moore v. Dodd · filed 2022-11-22

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 did not support jurisdiction over state-law claims where this plaintiff had no cognizable federal claim.

Sanders v. JD Home Rentals · filed 2022-11-28

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, which, for the reasons explained above, he does not.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim survives dismissal.

Carroll v. Walden University, LLC · filed 2022-11-28

Since Count I is not dismissed, the court may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when there is a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Pull v. Harbour Deputy Bailiff · filed 2023-01-13(a)

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

Section 1367(a) requires a related federal anchor claim for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence claims.

Boggs v. PrimeCare Medical Inc. · filed 2023-02-15(a)

Second, if Boggs is attempting to assert state-law negligence claims only, this Court would have no jurisdiction to hear them without a related federal anchor claim. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims requires a cognizable federal claim for relief.

Sanders v. Hicks · filed 2023-04-25

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, which, for the reasons explained above, he does not. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, the Court does not address the viability of any of Plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims when there is no federal law claim.

GARRETT v. BURLINGTON COUNTY JAIL · filed 2023-05-02(a)

Without a federal law claim, this Court lacks ... supplemental jurisdiction over New Jersey tort claims.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims only when a federal claim is pending in the same case.

Langlois, Curtis v. Walsh · filed 2023-07-27(a)

His allegations might support Wisconsin-law negligence claims, but this federal court generally does not have jurisdiction over state-law claims unless they are related to a federal claim that is pending in the same case, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, or the plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint states no federal claim.

Dominguez v. Abaci · filed 2023-08-13(a)

But that is a state-law claim, and without any federal claim, the court 10 would need to have diversity jurisdiction to hear the state-law claim.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims requires a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Bowers v. Owolabi · filed 2023-08-23(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. Here, the Court has found no federal claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the plaintiff states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Dunn v. Rodriguez · filed 2023-08-31(a)

While the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As pled, plaintiff’s original complaint failed to state a cognizable federal civil rights claim.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction, but the plaintiff must first state a cognizable federal claim when relying on federal-question jurisdiction.

Hendrix v. City of Madera · filed 2023-09-14(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first state a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if the plaintiff first has a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Hernandez v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation · filed 2023-09-26(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367(c) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint states no federal claim.

Braden v. Wisconsin Community Services · filed 2023-10-25(c)

Although Plaintiff makes clear that he wishes to pursue a defamation of character claim and a negligence claim against Defendants, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claims.

Section 1367 requires a cognizable federal claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

(PC) Jaime v. Kern Medical · filed 2024-01-09

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when there is a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PS) Stevens v. County of Neveda · filed 2024-02-12

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) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff states no cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Bailey v. Mejia · filed 2024-03-07(a)

Here, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable federal claim. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the complaint fails to adequately plead any federal claim.

Castillo v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District · filed 2024-03-27(a)

In sum, the complaint fails to adequately plead any federal claim. The court thus does not have any supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 requires a cognizable federal claim before a district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Nash v. Pacheco · filed 2024-04-08(a)

Here, the Court will not address the viability of Nash’s state law claims because it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim unless and until Nash states a cognizable federal claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim for relief.

Vela v. The State Bar of California · filed 2024-05-01(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the complaint lacks a viable federal claim.

Robinson v. St Joesph County Jail · filed 2024-05-20

Without a federal claim under § 1983, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over a state law claim against Sam.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when a federal claim remains pending.

Rivera v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2024-06-05(a)

Because Plaintiff’s § 1981 retaliation claim survives, the Court ... will exercise its jurisdiction over the aforementioned state law claims and address the Motion as to the sufficiency of their pleading.

Section 1367(a) does not give a federal court jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint fails to allege a plausible federal claim.

Marroquin v. Portland General Electric · filed 2024-06-17(a)

Finally, because plaintiffs cannot establish a plausible federal claim, plaintiffs' common ... law claim for breach of contract and claims under various state statutes are not within the jurisdiction of the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires a federal anchor claim for supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Mendenhall v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2024-06-28(a)

While the libel claim escapes preemption, without a federal anchor claim, this Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction to hear it.

Section 1367 provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim has been stated.

Cross v. Binns · filed 2024-07-31

Because Plaintiff has not stated any claims arising under federal law, there is no basis for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the balance of his claims.

Section 1367(c) does not allow the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when the complaint states no federal claim.

Wilkerson v. Eplett · filed 2024-09-25(c)

However, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim.

Section 1367(a) allows a court to consider related state law claims when there is a cognizable federal claim supporting original jurisdiction.

Greathouse v. City of Fresno · filed 2024-10-03(a)

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

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but the court required a cognizable federal claim before screening a purported state law claim.

Greathouse v. City of Fresno · filed 2024-11-08(a)

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

Section 1367 permits a state-law claim to proceed as supplemental to a federal claim.

McColly v. LaPorte County Jail · filed 2024-11-22(a)

For this court to hear a state-law claim against non-state actors, the claim must be supplemental to a federal claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, or fall under diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1367 does not permit a supplemental jurisdiction analysis based on a federal question claim unless that claim is cognizable.

Dillard v. Lovell · filed 2025-03-10(a)

The Court cannot undertake a supplemental jurisdiction analysis without a cognizable federal question claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if the plaintiff first states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Peterson v. CDCR · filed 2025-06-27

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) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim.

McMillan v. Henning inc. · filed 2025-06-30(a)

A federal court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as a federal claim, but a plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law for the case to proceed in federal court.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, but the court required a cognizable federal claim before screening those claims.

Lacy v. Fresno County Sheriff's Office · filed 2025-07-16(a)

Insofar as Plaintiff is attempting to assert state law claims, the Court declines to screen them in the absence of a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has 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 III of the United States Constitution,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). The Supreme Court has stated that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims; when federal claims are the asserted basis for original jurisdiction, the court may defer screening the state claims if no cognizable federal claim is pleaded.

Martin v. City of McFarland · filed 2025-08-14(a)

Though the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has failed to allege any cognizable claims under federal law, the Court will not screen Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to state law.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the court has a cognizable federal claim.

McMillan v. Cheveron · filed 2025-08-18(a)

A federal court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as the federal clams, but a plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. ... Because Plaintiff has not stated a federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised in the Complaint.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when there is no predicate federal claim.

Jeffcoat v. Facebook Inc. · filed 2025-08-29(a)

For the same reason, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction, because there is no predicate federal claim.

When federal claims are the asserted basis for original jurisdiction, Section 1367(a) requires a cognizable federal claim before the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Martin · filed 2025-09-22(a)

Though the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiffs must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the same conduct as a federal claim that remains in the case, even if the federal claim is inadequately pleaded.

Morales · filed 2025-10-22(a)

And because this Opinion and Order does not dismiss Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim and is instead determining damages, the Court retains jurisdiction over the state-law claims (which are based on the same conduct as the federal claims) under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has not stated a cognizable federal claim.

Gellman · filed 2025-11-12

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, plaintiff cannot pursue such claims in this court without first stating a cognizable claim under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has yet to state a cognizable federal claim.

Baldwin · filed 2025-11-25(a)

Because Mr. Baldwin has yet to state a cognizable federal claim, the Court cannot yet exert supplemental jurisdiction.