28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Lewis-Junge v. Office of Children Services · filed 2025-12-05(a)

Plaintiff must allege cognizable federal claims before this Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state tort allegations.

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

Akhenaten · filed 2025-12-08(a)

Here, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, so the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claim is plainly devoid of merit.

Harvey · filed 2025-12-15(a)

Harvey’s § 1983 claim against these defendants is plainly devoid of merit and cannot serve as a basis for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that sufficiently relate to a federal claim.

DEANGELIS · filed 2025-12-23(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because they sufficiently relate to the § 14(a) claim.

Section 1367 provides no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claim is plausibly alleged.

Yerkyn v. Yakovlevich · filed 2026-01-16

Because Amirkhanov failed to plausibly allege any federal claim, there is no basis for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction when there is no federal claim to support it.

Stuff · filed 2026-02-17(a)

Petitoner’s argument regarding the authority of the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear the case is misplaced. Because there is no violation of constitutional law, Petitioner lacks a federal claim.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when there is no cognizable federal claim to support them.

Northway · filed 2026-03-09(a)

A state law claim may only proceed in federal court if the claim is supplemental to a cognizable federal claim, of which there is no such claim here,17 or if the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no viable federal claim supports federal-question jurisdiction.

Warfield · filed 2026-03-24(a)

Without a viable federal claim, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when there is no cognizable federal claim.

Polty · filed 2026-05-12(a)

A state law claim may only proceed in federal court if the claim is supplemental to a cognizable federal claim,8 of which there are none in this case, or if the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the case, which requires that the plaintiff be a citizen of a different state than all the defendants, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.9 Here, neither requirement is met.

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

(PC) Collins v. Marfil · filed 2025-04-01(a)

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

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim in the interest of comity when the issue is unresolved in state court and related state actions are pending.

United Wire, Metal & MacHine Health & Welfare Fund v. Morristown Memorial Hospital · filed 1992-07-06(c)

The Court declines to exercise its pendent jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim in the interest of comity. ... The New Jersey State Courts have never faced this issue. Moreover, the Hospital Defendants commenced related actions, which are currently pending in New Jersey, in which they seek reimbursement from plaintiffs who failed to pay the contested charges. In view of the interrelatedness of these actions, this Court will defer to the New Jersey State Courts.

Section 1367(c) requires courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to evaluate its three comity-related circumstances and catchall circumstance.

Bina v. Providence College · filed 1994-02-17(c)

It now appeal’s the exercise or declination of supplemental jurisdiction requires the evaluation of the three comity-related and one catchall circumstances set forth in section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims only when an enumerated factor applies and remand serves economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Barbara v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 1995-08-16(c)

All of Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the “same nucleus of operative facts” giving this court supplemental pendent jurisdiction, which the court cannot reject without a finding that one of the section 1367(c) factors applies, as well as a finding that remand would serve the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state medical malpractice claims when the state issues are not novel or complex, the claims do not predominate over federal claims, and bifurcation would not serve judicial economy.

Jones v. Garcia · filed 1996-09-10(c)

The Court notes that the issues of state law raised in this case are not novel, nor are the issues necessarily complex. ... The Court also notes that the negligence claims do not necessarily predominate over the EMTALA claims. ... The Court notes that judicial economy is not served by bifurcating this case, involving the resources of two judicial officers.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc. · filed 1997-11-03(c)

Since Count III is a state-law claim, the only jurisdiction this court can exercise over it is supplemental jurisdiction,. and the decision whether to exercise such jurisdiction is one of discretion. ... For the foregoing reasons, this court, on its own motion, shall remand Count III of the complaint, which is predicated upon state law, to the Wayne County Circuit Court.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons, including duplicative pending state litigation that undermines judicial economy.

Town of Ogden Dunes v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. · filed 1998-01-26(c)(4)

The steel companies have focused on subsection (c)(4), the exceptional circumstances case. ... Bethlehem and National would not be before this court were it not for the Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States, an act which could never grant this court jurisdiction over private parties on its own. Additionally, the goal of judicial economy is not being met here — substantially similar claims have already been lodged against the steel companies in the currently pending state court litigation to which Ogden Dunes, if not the 130 resident plaintiffs, is already a party. Thus, the court now declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the steel companies and their motions to dismiss are granted.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims insufficiently related to a remaining federal claim when judicial economy favors resolution in state court.

International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Spear, Wilderman, Borish, Endy, Spear & Runckel · filed 1998-02-20(c)

I shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Blackwell, Joyce and Spear Wilderman, as they are not sufficiently related to the remaining federal claim to warrant supplemental jurisdiction. No discovery has taken place, and resolution of these claims in state court will best serve judicial economy.

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

Metro Ford Truck v. Ford Motor Company · filed 1998-08-10(c)

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

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims when retaining them would disserve judicial economy or trial convenience.

Walker v. Michael W. Colton Trust · filed 1999-01-13(c)

This court has discretion to exercise its pendent jurisdiction. ... Although the federal and state claims in 'this action arise out of the same factual situation, litigating these claims together may not serve judicial economy or trial convenience. ... For the foregoing reasons, this Court shall dismiss Count VI and Count VII of plaintiffs’ complaint. This Court shall also dismiss the various state law claims contained in Counts I through V.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims predominate over a federal claim or compelling reasons of economy, fairness, and comity favor their remand to a pending state action.

West Coast, Inc. v. Snohomish County · filed 1999-01-20(c)(2), (c)(4)

The Court finds, pursuant to § 1367(c)(2), that the issues involved in West Coast’s state law claims, namely the facts surrounding the County’s denial of West Coast’s permit applications and the propriety and legality of those actions under Washington’s land use statutes and regulations, predominate over the federal claim. ... The Court also finds that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) is applicable. ... In the circumstances presented here, those values support a remand of the state law claims to state court. A related action that cannot be removed to federal court, No. 98-2-02951-8, is already pending in Snohomish County Superior Court. ... General principles of comity and fairness support the remand of the state claims so that they can be heard together with the pending state court action. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and (4), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Courts deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) must consider its statutory grounds and the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Batiste v. Island Records Inc · filed 1999-07-23(c)

We must therefore consider both the statutory provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the balance of the relevant factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity that the Supreme Court outlined in Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1988), and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), in determining whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing the Batistes’ voluntary dismissal of their remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, subject to abuse of discretion review considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Commty Initiatives v. Chase Bnk TX Natl · filed 2000-12-15(c)

The defendants have also failed to establish that the district court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims was an abuse of discretion in light of the principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the need to avoid needless decisions of state law.

Hahn Acquisition Corp. v. Hahn · filed 2001-03-29(c)

Furthermore, even if this Court had concluded that the claim for relief in Count I was preempted by federal law, this Court would exercise its discretion not to entertain the supplemental state claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), and would dismiss without prejudice Counts II, III, and IV. In exercising its discretion, the Court must look to “considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants” and avoid needless decisions of state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Smith v. Lenches · filed 2001-08-30

While 28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants federal courts supplemental jurisdiction, the United States Supreme Court has held that district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73, 118 S.Ct. 523, 139 L.Ed.2d 525 (1997). These rules make clear that the district court had discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Harris v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2001-09-13(c)(3)

Therefore, having considered the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’s battery claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved, but judicial economy, convenience, and fairness may favor retaining them.

Schultz v. Kelly · filed 2002-02-21(c)

Should the district court adopt this recommendation with respect to Plaintiffs’ federal claims it could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV through IX which are based exclusively on state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, however, this court will further recommend that the district court exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and enter summary judgment in Defendants’ favor for the reasons which follow.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims involving domestic relations when comity favors litigation in state court.

Wimer v. Vila · filed 1999-03-03(c)

This Court refrains from exercising its supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the Sheriff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Eubanks v. Gerwen, 40 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir.1994). Traditionally, federal courts have declined to exercise jurisdiction over domestic relations matters. Comity dictates that these issues should be litigated in state court.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over child custody and support claims within the domestic relations exception.

Griessel v. Mobley · filed 2008-05-07

This is because, as will be discussed next, this Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain claims one and two. That is, as will be shown shortly, these claims do not fall within either this Court’s original or supplemental (28 U.S.C. § 1367) jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts jurisdiction over related state law claims arising from the same transaction as federal Telecommunications Act claims, absent an express statutory bar.

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. TCG Milwaukee, Inc. · filed 2002-08-30(a)

Thus, barring a statute that precludes review expressly, § 1367 provides subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, provided they arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as its federal law claims.

Section 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims related to federal claims.

Fox International Relations v. Fiserv Securities, Inc. · filed 2007-05-07(a)

Because of the relationship between Laucius’ federal and state claims, the Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs common law claims.

Section 1367 permits sufficiently related state law claims to proceed in the same case as federal claims.

Espenscheid v. DIRECTSAT USA, LLC · filed 2010-04-13(a)

Finally, the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, providing for federal courts’ exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, indicates that Congress intended state law claims to go forward with federal law claims when the claims involved are sufficiently related.

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

Chandler v. Matthew Branchaud a/k/a Abatiell Associates & Mark Furlan a/k/a Furlan Associates · filed 2016-03-10(a)

On the contrary, federal law expressly provides for “supplemental jurisdiction” over state claims “that are so related to claims in the action . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and this action falls within the rule.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim dropped from the amended complaint.

Abrams v. Walker · filed 2002-10-10(a)

However, contrary to Appellant's Brief, the district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as Abrams had dropped the state law claim in his amended complaint...

Section 1367 does not let a litigant use supplemental jurisdiction to bypass state-court review of a state agency decision when state law assigns that review to state court.

Munroe v. Compaq Computer Corp. · filed 2002-10-18(a)

A litigant may not use supplemental jurisdiction to have a federal court instead of a state court perform judicial review of a state administrative agency decision that a state statute assigns to state court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim for judicial review of an administrative decision when it arises from the same facts as federal claims in a removed action.

Rogers v. Pomeroy · filed 2004-10-29(a)

Specifically, a claim for judicial review of an administrative decision brought in state court, as here, may be removed to federal court when the complaint includes federal claims, and the federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim for review of the administrative decision.

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

Moxley v. Town of Walkersville · filed 2009-03-06(a)

Under City of Chicago, therefore, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ judicial review claim because it is “part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 extends supplemental jurisdiction to review of state administrative agency determinations when the district court has not declined to exercise it.

Scheidler v. Avery · filed 2015-03-30

Nor did the district court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 168-69 (1997) (supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 extends to review of state administrative agency determinations). We therefore reverse and remand for review of the agency decision.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim seeking review of a state administrative decision.

McRay v. Ross · filed 2018-05-30(a)

So there is nothing in § 1367(a) that would prevent the Illinois Administrative Review Law claim from being premised on supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not authorize a federal court to enforce a state court decision or exercise jurisdiction over the related state administrative proceeding.

Xu v. The City of New York · filed 2019-11-26

This Court has no power to exercise jurisdiction over the state court’s decision; if Plaintiff believes that Defendants have not complied with that decision, Plaintiff may consider appropriate action in state court (e.g., motion for contempt). This Court also does not have jurisdiction over the state administrative action. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is denied.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state administrative review and related fee claims when federal review would offer no benefit in judicial economy or avoidance of conflicting decisions.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Norval Electric Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2020-04-02(c)

The Court sees nothing to be gained in terms of judicial economy or the avoidance of risk of conflicting decisions in exercising pendent jurisdiction over judicial review of Lawson’s action before the Montana Human Rights Commission (17-2) and her related state court claim to recover attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party before the Human Rights Commission. ... For these reasons the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the judicial review of the Human Rights Commission decision (Doc. 17-2) and the related question of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Section 1367 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim sufficiently related to federal claims even when state law prescribes an exclusive state-court review procedure.

Friends of Blue Mound State Park v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources · filed 2023-02-02(a)

In response, the Friends cites City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 168 (1997), which holds that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides jurisdiction over state-law claims that are sufficiently related to federal claims, even if state law prescribes a specific process for resolving the claim in state court. ... These cases are persuasive, and defendants don’t attempt to distinguish them in their reply brief, so the court concludes that it may exercise jurisdiction over the Friends’ ch. 227 claim under § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim seeking review of a state administrative decision even when state law directs the appeal to a state court.

Phillips v. Jackson Public School District · filed 2023-11-09(a)

Further, although the statute purports to grant an aggrieved employee the right to appeal to “chancery court,” she maintains that her appeal, instead, to this court is permissible and within this court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (stating, in pertinent 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 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.”). It appears plaintiff is correct.

Section 1367(a) does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law zoning claim when the Telecommunications Act limits federal review of local zoning decisions.

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Town of Wayland Massachusetts · filed 2002-11-22(a)

By limiting the federal courts’ jurisdiction, Congress manifestly limited federal intrusion into local zoning authority. That manifested limitation cannot be avoided by a purported exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. For that reason, this court is not authorized to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction to consider whether the Town has violated Massachusetts state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) support remanding state-law claims when they present a novel or complex state-law issue and all federal claims have been resolved.

Key Outdoor Inc. And Robert Dahl v. City of Galesburg, Illinois · filed 2003-04-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

The presence of “a novel or complex issue of State law”, § 1367(c)(1), in a suit where all federal claims have been finally resolved, § 1367(c)(3), implies the wisdom of sending those state-law theories back to state court.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel issue of state law.

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. City of San Jose · filed 2003-08-18(c)(1)

Moreover, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) because the interpretation of California Civil Code § 798.21 raises a novel issue of state law— specifically whether the Individual Defendants are exempt from the Ordinance.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim involving a novel issue of state law.

Roddy v. Canine Officer · filed 2003-11-18(c)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(1), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if the claim involves a novel issue of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that presents a novel issue of state law.

Clark v. Summit County Sheriff · filed 2007-01-10(c)(1)

This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over this State constitutional claim of first impression, raising as it does “a novel ... issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to leave a novel issue of state law on a supplemental claim for the state court to decide.

Lemmons v. Georgetown University Hospital · filed 2007-03-01(c)(1)

Moreover, because “the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has not squarely addressed the standard by which claims of religious discrimination—particularly those such as the plaintiffs—are to be analyzed under the DCHRA,” ... it remains a novel issue of state law, and thus it is not for this Court to decide, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (2000), what statements the plaintiff could have made in her deposition, absent an explicit declaration that she had “abandoned that claim,” ... that would truly constitute an abandonment of her claim of religious discrimination.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel issues of state law, taking judicial economy, convenience, and fairness into account.

Walters v. American Coach Lines of Miami, Inc. · filed 2008-07-29(c)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs* claims that they were terminated in violation of Florida’s Whistle-Blower’s Act, involve novel issues of State law. ... Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and in consideration of the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Whistle-Blower’s Act claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim presenting a novel issue of state law.

ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC. v. Starrett · filed 2010-10-07(c)(1)

Novelty is a ground for declining jurisdiction under section 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising a novel issue of state law.

Rhiel v. Central Mortgage Co. (In Re Kebe) · filed 2011-03-30(c)(1)

Considering the factors set forth above as well as § 1367(c)’s provision that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel issue of state law, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Third-Party Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims despite a potentially novel state-law issue when judicial economy and convenience favor retention.

Satkar Hospitality Inc. v. Cook County Board of Review · filed 2011-05-20(c)(1)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if, among other things, it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... The Court concludes that, on balance, the values of judicial economy and convenience weigh in favor of this Court retaining jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. Because the state and federal claims arise from a common factual nucleus, judicial economy would best be served by deciding all of the claims in this Court.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving a novel issue of state law, particularly after all federal claims have been eliminated before trial.

Ord v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-09-15(c)(1)

Here, not only are all federal-law claims now eliminated pre-trial, but the remaining state-law claims involve the novel interpretation of whether a SCOP qualifies as an "officer" for purposes of D.C. Code § 7-2502.1(b).4 Hence, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises novel issues better resolved by state courts.

Horn v. City of Mackinac Island · filed 2013-03-29(c)(1)

In particular, the Court notes that the issues Horn raises are somewhat novel issues of state law that should be left to Michigan courts in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel question of state law.

Winfield v. Babylon Beauty School of Smithtown Inc. · filed 2015-03-07(c)(1)

However, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ claim under Article 10, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution raises a novel question of law. ... Rather than attempt to resolve this divided issue, the better course is to decline supplemental jurisdiction and allow the Eleventh Circuit or the Florida Supreme Court to resolve whether the pre-suit notice requirements of the FMWA infringes upon the rights guaranteed to plaintiffs under Article X, § 24, of the Florida Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel issue of state law.

Lath v. Oak Brook Condominium Owners' Association, et al. · filed 2017-03-20(c)(1)

But, even if the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s proxy abuse claim, § 1367(c)(1) counsels against exercising that jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s proxy abuse claim arises primarily under a provision in New Hampshire’s Condominium Act that has been the subject of no reported decisions from the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Thus, resolution of that claim will necessarily involve dealing with “a novel . . . issue of State law,” id., and the court declines to do so.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it raises a novel issue, including whether an undeveloped state statute implies a private right of action.

Jain v. Butler Illinois School District 53 · filed 2018-03-22(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it raises a novel issue of state law. Because Illinois law on claims under the bullying-prevention statute is undeveloped, a ruling from this Court on whether the statute implies a private right of action “would require significant policy determinations as to the legislative intent behind the statute and the inherent role of the statute in remedying bullying in schools.” Eilenfeldt, 2013 WL 12248080, at *7. The Court agrees with the Eilenfeldt court that “such determinations are better left to the discretion of the state courts.” Id. Count VIII is accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel issue of state law.

Alston v. Nat'l Conference of Bar Exam'rs · filed 2018-06-07(c)(1)

Having dismissed them, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alston's negligence claim because it raises a novel issue of state of law: whether Defendant NCBE owed a duty to Alston upon which a negligence claim could be based.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after resolving the sole federal claim before trial, particularly when substantial state-law questions are better addressed by state courts.

Costello v. Molari, Inc. · filed 2019-11-20(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims (Counts II-IV), which are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel issue of state law with no controlling precedent.

Hawranek v. Law Office Of the Public Defender · filed 2020-08-25(c)(1)

Plaintiff’s claim—which appears to have been filed after the six-month statute of limitations in New Mexico’s Administrative Code (11.21.3.9 NMAC)—“raises a novel . . . issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state administrative appeal when it does not share operative facts with the federal claims, even if both matters involve the same agency and property.

Habich v. City of Dearborn John Cascardo and John Nagy · filed 2003-06-06

The federal suit involved the failure to hold a hearing and the refusal to sell some land; the state proceeding involved the nature of an owner-occupant relationship. The suits involved the same agency and same piece of property, but it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to review the state administrative proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over absent class members’ related state-law claims even when those members assert no federal claim of their own.

Carnevale v. GE Aircraft Engines · filed 2003-08-20(a)

Thus, under the plain meaning of § 1367(a), this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of the absent class members.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to related state overtime claims of absent class members who did not join the FLSA collective action.

Nerland v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc. · filed 2007-05-17(a)

Accordingly, the Court concludes its supplemental jurisdiction in this case reaches to pendent state law overtime claims of absent class members who did not join the FLSA collective action.

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

Papurello v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. · filed 2015-11-16(a)

The court concludes § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate in this action. The named plaintiffs and putative class members entered into the identical State Farm homeowners’ insurance policy in issue, suffered partial damage to their Pennsylvania residences, and received initial payment estimations from defendant equaling replacement cost less depreciation. Putative class members’ claims, therefore, arise out of the same “case or controversy” as, and share a “common nucleus of operative fact with, the named plaintiffs’ claims.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130. Consequently, the court will exercise its discretion under § 1367 to hear putative class members’ claims, in addition to the named plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law debt counterclaim when limited factual overlap and the risk of discouraging TCPA suits weigh against hearing it.

Slaughter v. Regional Acceptance Corporation · filed 2020-12-14(c)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where: ... (2) it substantially predominates over the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction; ... (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Regional’s counterclaim for breach of contract in view of the second and fourth considerations.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law debt-collection counterclaims that share operative facts with a TCPA claim when their distinct proof and repossession remedy would substantially predominate.

Dotson v. Ally Financial, Inc. · filed 2019-11-07(c)(2)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Ally’s Counterclaims, but declines to exercise it because Ally’s Counterclaims would substantially predominate over Dotson’s action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state consumer-protection claim sharing a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal debt-collection claim, including a disputed forgery arising from the same transaction.

Dunn v. Adams, Stepner, Woltermann, & Dusing, P.L.L.C. · filed 2019-11-19(a)

The two claims clearly share at least one common issue of fact—whether Written Confirmation 1 was forged. As this factual issue appears to be key to both claims, the Court finds that judicial resources are best served by determining the forgery issue in the same matter. Additionally, the claims both arise out of the same transaction and dispute over the vehicle repairs and ensuing debt. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the KCPA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a contract counterclaim when it shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim concerning collection of that contract debt.

Walker v. Westlake Financial Services, LLC · filed 2020-06-17(a)

Both claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts, namely Walker’s failure to make payments under the Retail Installment Sales Contract and related collection attempts.

Section 1367(a) reaches state-law claims against an additional defendant when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, including claims based on separate attempts to collect the same disputed debt.

SANDERS v. SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP · filed 2020-08-26(a)

As such, both claims will requite the same factual findings as to the status of the debt, and the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim related to a federal claim by common facts, including when the state-law claim is removed from state court.

Wagner v. The New Victorians Inc. · filed 2020-12-04(a)

This Court finds that the common facts between the two cases and the interest of judicial economy counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Eviction Case.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when it shares common facts with a federal claim and judicial economy favors hearing them together.

630 N. High Street, LLC v. Matthews · filed 2020-12-04(a)

This Court finds that the common facts between the two cases and the interest of judicial economy counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Eviction Case.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against individual defendants when those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as a surviving federal claim, even if the federal claims against those individuals have been dismissed.

Ramos v. METRO GUARD SERVICE, INC. · filed 2005-07-12(a)

Therefore, since both the federal and state courts of Puerto Rico have held that an agent, official, administrator or supervisor of a business can be found personally liable for violations of the laws invoked under supplemental jurisdiction in this lawsuit, and because the alleged violations of those laws stem from the same nucleus of operative facts as the facts alleged in the Title VII claim that is still before this Court, the Court hereby DENIES co-Defendants Olmo, Figueroa, Nieves, and Mercado’s motions to dismiss the Puerto Rico law claims against them.

Section 1367(a) requires a state claim to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction.

Henry v. Champlain Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2003-10-28(a)

A simple review of the facts giving rise to the surviving ERISA claims, and those giving rise to the state law claims, clearly demonstrates no common nucleus of fact among Counts One and Two and Count Three.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when they share a sufficiently common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Cormier v. Funtown/Splashtown USA, Inc. · filed 2003-11-20(a)

While it is regrettable at this late stage, I conclude that the plaintiffs state-law claims in this case do not arise from a nucleus of operative facts sufficiently common to those giving rise to her federal claim to allow this court to exercise jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact as a federal claim.

Estates of Ungar & Ungar v. Palestinian Authority · filed 2004-07-12(a)

Similarly, the “common nucleus of operative fact,” ... from which Plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims arise has also been established. ... The court has jurisdiction over those supplemental causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when their operative facts are distinct from the federal proceeding and that proceeding matters only for its potentially preclusive effect.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. · filed 2004-07-16(a)

While there may be common legal questions, those are resolved by the discharge question and once that determination is made, there are no common factual questions. Adjudicating, any preserved state law claims, should they exist, would hinge factually on the operative contracts and would not, at that point, require reference to any facts pertaining to bankruptcy. There is, therefore, no common nucleus of facts. The bankruptcy proceedings only come into play as a potentially preclusive adjudication of the asserted rights. Accordingly, there is no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires counterclaims to arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim under the court’s original jurisdiction; shared background facts alone are insufficient.

Burgess v. Omar · filed 2004-11-16(a)

Thus, while there may be some facts that are common to both the complaint and these counterclaims, the complaint and these counterclaims do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. Put another way, while facts relevant to one claim might provide background with respect to the other, more is required.

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

Harper v. Autoalliance International, Inc., Aai Employee Services Co., L.L.C., Jeffrey Kelly, and Allen Child · filed 2004-12-16(a)

Because these claims shared the same nucleus of operative facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Bank of America Corp. v. Lemgruber · filed 2005-01-05(a)

This Court clearly has the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over BAC’s fraudulent inducement claim. ... Moreover, the fraudulent inducement and breach of contract claims clearly share “a common nucleus of operative fact,” namely Defendants’ alleged embezzlement of BL Bank funds and subsequent failure to disclose this and other negative information regarding the BL Banks to Plaintiffs at the time of the 2000 and 2001 Stock Purchases.

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

Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance · filed 2005-02-15(a)

Since the RICO claims and the state law claims all arise from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” (i.e., that Defendants allegedly employed unlawful sales practices based upon misrepresentations in order to sell insurance policies), this Court properly has supplemental jurisdiction to resolve them.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a defamation counterclaim that shares almost no factual or legal overlap with a discrimination claim.

Singh v. George Washington University · filed 2005-03-22(a)

Evidence showing or disproving plaintiffs disability, her ability to otherwise succeed in medical school, and failure to accommodate — the elements of the ADA claim — would offer no insight into whether plaintiff harmed Dean Goldberg by allegedly publishing defamatory statements. Therefore, the court must dismiss Dean Goldberg’s counterclaim.

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

Chen v. Street Beat Sportswear, Inc. · filed 2005-04-06(a)

Nevertheless, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) given that the federal and state law claims derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367(a) requires federal and state claims to share operative facts; a common employment relationship or factual background alone is insufficient.

Berg v. BCS Financial Corp. · filed 2005-06-06(a)

Furthermore, that these claims emerged out of the same factual background or from Berg’s general employment relationship with BCS is insufficient.

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

Fernandez-Vargas v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2005-06-08(a)

Because we dismissed the wrongful death claims against Pfizer, the wrongful death claims against Adorno-Cabán and the remaining ERISA claims against Pfizer no longer “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a local-law claim arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as substantial federal claims, even when the claims address different aspects of the same legislation.

Decatur Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia · filed 2005-06-16(a)

Finding that the Home Rule Act claim derives from the same common nucleus of operative facts and finding no merit to Defendants’ argument that the federal claims derive solely from the local law claim, the Court concludes that its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Home Rule Act claim is appropriate.

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.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Creative Playthings, Ltd. · filed 2005-06-21(a)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over this claim is appropriate in the present case because this claim and the Title VII claim share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims and would ordinarily be tried in one suit.

Schuster v. Anderson · filed 2005-07-12(a)

In sum, supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a), is appropriate where the federal-law claims and the state-law claims in the case “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to bring all of the claims in one suit.

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

Diversified Carting, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 2005-08-15(a)

Indeed, the allegations in the Complaint center around a “constantly evolving project” (Comply 31), thus the federal law claims and the state law claims stem from a “common nucleus of operative facts.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, even when the facts underlying the claims are not identical.

A Slice of Pie Productions, LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entertainment · filed 2005-09-21(a)

As courts have interpreted this provision, district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over any claim that “derive[s] from a common nucleus of operative fact.” ... Accordingly, the state claims in this case arise from the same operative nucleus of facts as the federal claims and it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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.

Phoenix Renovation Corp. v. Rodriguez · filed 2005-12-08(a)

Based on the allegations and arguments before the Court thus far, it appears that the alleged copyright infringement is intertwined with the state law claims. Underlying each of Phoenix’s state law claims is a basic allegation that Defendants employed a business strategy of stealing Phoenix’s plans, methods, and employees. To prove the copyright infringement claim, Phoenix must necessarily put on evidence that Defendants used Phoenix’s Interior Repipe Agreement, and so this claim will also require proof of such conduct. The Court will thus conclude that the state law claims and the infringement claim derive from a common nucleus of fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims when the claims would ordinarily be tried together.

Schuster v. Anderson · filed 2005-12-22(a)

The court notes that all of the plaintiffs' causes of action arise out of the defendants' allegedly fraudulent conduct which thereby induced the plaintiffs into investing their money in Yournet and Yournet-related entities. Accordingly, the court may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Berna v. City of Detroit · filed 2006-01-03(a)

All the state law claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact, namely the alleged production of noise and chemical emissions from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant; therefore, I would have the option of hearing the remaining state law claims under my supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lovely H. v. Eggleston · filed 2006-04-19(a)

Here, it is clear that the state and local law claims do indeed derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and thus are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ state and local law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a state-law claim requiring facts entirely different from those underlying the federal claims.

Tech Enterprises, Inc. v. Wiest · filed 2006-04-24(a)

Because plaintiffs breach of contract claim requires the court to consider facts entirely different from those underlying the federal claims, this court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over an insurer coverage claim when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

O'BANNON v. Friedman's, Inc. · filed 2006-06-28(a)

The factual connections between the claims at issue and the underlying claim are sufficient, according to the Fourth Circuit’s liberal interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to constitute a “common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state wrongful termination claim arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as federal discrimination and First Amendment claims.

Wilcoxon v. Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education · filed 2006-06-30(a)

The court finds that it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs wrongful termination claim because defendant's failure to properly place disciplinary letters in his personnel file arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts surrounding the gender discrimination claim and the first amendment claim.

Section 1367(a) covers state claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

Davis v. Department of Health & Hospitals · filed 2006-07-26(a)

Davis’s state law claims are supplemental to her federal claim, and the district court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, as a substantial number of factual issues are common to both claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims that proceed.

Baker v. FAMILY CREDIT COUNSELING COPR. · filed 2006-07-28(a)

Plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact — their contacts and contracts with defendants for DMPs. ... Therefore, the Court will, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Capitol Park Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n v. Jackson · filed 2006-10-19(a)

In order for the district court to have properly asserted supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Millennia, the two claims must form part of the same case or controversy. ... Plaintiff’s contract claims against Millennia derive from the same “nucleus of operative fact” as its claims against Jackson for injunctive relief.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a nonfederal claim only when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within original federal jurisdiction.

Highway Equipment Company, Inc. v. Feco, Ltd · filed 2006-11-21(a)

The district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(a) to hear the 322F count because the 322F count and the patent counts are not derived from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim, even when their liability standards and damages analyses differ.

DeNuzzo v. Yale New Haven Hospital · filed 2006-12-19(a)

Further, although the standards for liability and the damages analysis for the Rehabilitation claims will differ from the standards for liability and the damages analysis for the negligent misrepresentation claim, the court finds that the claims still will require many of the same witnesses, much of the same evidence, and determination of many of the same facts. As such, they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires supplemental claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims under original jurisdiction.

Pop Warner v. NH Youth Football · filed 2007-03-01(a)

Because these two distinct categories of claims do not share a common nucleus of operative fact, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of fiduciary duty (Count V I ) , ultra vires (Count V I I ) , breach of contract (Count VIII), and unfair and deceptive practices (Count IX) claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims against other defendants after diversity jurisdiction fails.

Hough v. O'Neal · filed 2007-03-22

We are satisfied that the court lacked diversity jurisdiction and that it did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain the claims against Grady Hospital and Dr. Doe under its supplemental § 1367 jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires state claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims for supplemental jurisdiction.

Pop Warner v. NH Youth Football · filed 2007-04-17(a)

In this case, the charitable trust, financial misappropriation, and banking issues raised in defendants’ counterclaims and third-party claims share no common legal or factual bases with the trademark issues raised in plaintiffs’ claims. ... The other claims are permissive, and, for the reasons set forth in the court’s order dated March 1 , 2007 (document n o . 3 8 ) , the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state claims.

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

Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission · filed 2007-06-12(a)

Thus in this case, the contract claims share a “common nucleus of operative facts” with the federal claims. Moreover, the state law claims arise from the same controversy as the federal law claims against the LPSC.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that arise from the same conduct as the federal claims and share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Duchene v. Michael L. Cetta, Inc. · filed 2007-06-18(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims if the state and federal claims and the FLSA claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” such that the parties “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” ... Here, the state and federal claims arise out of precisely the same conduct by Defendant, and there is no indication that the state claim would predominate over the federal claim. ... The Court therefore exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state minimum wage claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a sufficiently pleaded federal minimum wage claim.

Zhong v. August August Corp. · filed 2007-07-23(a)

Since “[t]he state and federal claims ... derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” and those claims have both been sufficiently alleged, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction and hear the state and federal minimum wage claims.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts with the surviving federal claim; claims arising from terminations at different times by different employers do not qualify.

Milan v. Centennial Communications Corp. · filed 2007-07-31(a)

Because the undisputed evidence shows that these Plaintiffs were terminated at different times and by different employers, the court finds that these Plaintiffs’ Law 80 claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts with the remaining WARN Act claim of Plaintiff Mercado. As such, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their Law 80 claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative facts between the federal and state claims; claims arising from the same encounter do not qualify when proof of the federal claim does not depend on the facts underlying the state claim.

White v. ADDANTE · filed 2007-08-01(a)

Mrs. White need not establish that Mr. White was assaulted in order to prove that her arrest was unconstitutional. Therefore, the state and federal claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) requires supplemental claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims under original jurisdiction.

Hackman v. Dickerson Realtors, Inc. · filed 2007-08-31(a)

Counts III and IV do not have the same nucleus of operative facts as Hackman’s other claims, so I dismiss them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Kinsey v. Gould · filed 2007-09-24(a)

These federal and state claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Blumatte v. Quinn · filed 2007-11-14(a)

The Court also declines to exercise its discretion to assert supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law contract claim against the Academy because it does not derive from “a common nucleus of operative fact” as the sole remaining federal claim, the Count 1 claim against defendants Quinn and Rogers.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims.

State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation · filed 2008-01-14(a)

With respect to the State’s other substantive claims against the Nation,4 the district court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) so long as they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” with the original federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against a different defendant when they and the federal claims share a central fact pattern.

Victors v. Kronmiller · filed 2008-03-06(a)

I conclude that it is proper to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state claims against Crosson.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against additional defendants when those claims do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims.

Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc. · filed 2008-03-25(a)

Rolls-Royce’s state law claims against Hiatt and Action are not similarly tied up with its RICO claims against Heros, Hye-Tech, and Kajberouni. Therefore, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Hiatt and Action, and amending the complaint would be futile if subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on § 1367.

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.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES CONSULTANTS, INC. v. Stewart · filed 2008-03-31(a)

Because I find that Plaintiffs Count I federal claim is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and because the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, I recommend that the court exercise its jurisdiction over the state law claims so that the entirety of the dispute between the parties can be resolved in a single action.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction; a loose factual connection suffices.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Shorenstein Realty Services, LP · filed 2008-07-08(a)

I agree with Shorenstein that count III derives from a common nucleus of operative facts and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Although AMICO was not a party to the insurance contract issued by the underlying plaintiff, its duties to Shorenstein in relation to the underlying suits provide more than a “loose factual connection between the claims.”

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state law counterclaims when an employment relationship is their only factual connection to federal overtime claims.

Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp. · filed 2008-08-28(a)

As in the compulsory versus permissive counterclaim context, however, the employment relationship does not establish a “common nucleus of operative fact” where it is the sole fact connecting Plaintiffs’ federal overtime claims and Gristede’s state law counterclaims.

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

Gusler v. Fischer · filed 2008-09-29(a)

Here, the state law claims against Fischer and the federal copyright claims arise directly out a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when the federal and state claims have only a tangential factual overlap rather than a common nucleus of operative facts.

Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co. · filed 2008-11-10(a)

The court cannot agree with plaintiff that its breach of contract claim and defendant’s validity claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the original federal claims; a loose factual connection generally suffices.

Houskins v. Sheahan · filed 2008-11-25(a)

A district court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against Keith pursuant to § 1367(a) “so long as they ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’ with the original federal claims.” ... The state claims brought by Houskins pertained to the same set of circumstances at issue in the federal claim. The crux of Houskins’s federal claim was that she was disciplined in retaliation for filing a grievance and police report against Keith, stemming from Keith’s assault on her in the parking lot, which was the crux of the state law claim. Moreover, in order to decide whether the Sheriffs internal investigation was legitimate, the jury needed to consider Keith’s assault on Houskins and the subsequent discipline of both Keith and Houskins. The district court properly asserted supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims; a loose factual connection generally suffices.

Houskins, Virgean v. Sheahan, Michael F. · filed 2008-11-25(a)

A district court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against Keith pursuant to § 1367(a) “so long as they ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’ with the original federal claims.” ... The state claims brought by Houskins pertained to the same set of circumstances at issue in the federal claim. ... The district court properly asserted supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Lower Love S.S., Inc. v. Ginseng Up Corp. · filed 2008-12-19(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over a non-federal claim is proper where there is a “common nucleus of operative fact between the state claim at issue and the accompanying federal claims.”

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim based on trial representation that is independent of the remaining federal civil rights claims.

Hernandez v. Dart · filed 2009-06-10(a)

His allegation of legal malpractice is based entirely on Stewart’s alleged negligence in representing him at trial and is independent of his alleged false arrest and false imprisonment. Accordingly, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over his legal malpractice claim against Stewart.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; a shared underlying hazard is insufficient when the claims depend on distinct conduct and proof.

Taylor v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-06-17(a)

Accordingly, the state and federal claims here do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and the court concludes that it should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims alleged against Hicks.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim and the claims would ordinarily be tried together.

Thompson v. Paul · filed 2009-06-30(a)

That alleged conduct provides a common nucleus of operative fact encompassing both the state and federal claims. Further, Plaintiffs would most likely ordinarily be expected to try their claims, including the minor children’s IIED claim, in one judicial proceeding. ... Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ request and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Thompson’s minor children’s state law IIED claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against additional parties when those claims and federal claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Rivera Carrion v. United States · filed 2009-07-09(a)

Therefore, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs Article 1802 and FTCA claims originate from a common nucleus of operative facts, and splitting the causes of action would do nothing to promote judicial efficiency or the interests of justice.

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Ahle v. Veracity Research Co. · filed 2009-07-28(a)

Because the counterclaims for breach of noncompete, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality agreements; misappropriation of confidential information; misappropriation of trade secrets; and unfair competition do not share a nucleus of operative fact with the FLSA claims, supplemental jurisdiction is lacking, and Counts One, Four, Five, and Six must be dismissed.

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

McRaven v. Sanders · filed 2009-08-20(a)

Here, the federal and state claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” and the district court did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

McRaven v. McMurrian · filed 2009-08-20(a)

Here, the federal and state claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” and the district court did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against one defendant when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims against other defendants and would ordinarily be brought in one suit.

Armstrong v. AMERICAN PALLET LEASING INC. · filed 2009-08-26(a)

Accordingly, the federal-law claims against APL, Timothy Bumgarner and other defendants and the state-law claims against U.S. Bank “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and are such that would ordinarily be expected to be brought in a single lawsuit. Consequently, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over all of plaintiffs’ claims against U.S. Bank raised in the First Amended Complaint.

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

Runaj v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2009-09-30(a)

Here, the Court may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims because Plaintiffs state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact: Wells Fargo’s loan to Plaintiff, and its alleged refusal to subsequently modify that loan.

Section 1367(a) requires local law claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction to apply.

Delaney v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-10-06(a)

The equal protection claim shares no common nucleus of operative fact with the local law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim whose facts overlap only tangentially with the federal claims.

Barr v. Diguglielmo · filed 2009-10-15(a)

A “mere tangential overlap of facts,” however, is insufficient to confer supplemental jurisdiction. ... Indeed, the fact underlying Barr’s breach of settlement claim — the placement of the confidential settlement agreement in his prison files— does not undergird any of his other claims. Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his breach of settlement claim.

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

Ning Ye v. Holder · filed 2009-11-04(a)

A court with original federal jurisdiction over certain claims has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “that are so related ... that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... “Accordingly, the state and federal claims here do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and the [C]ourt concludes that it should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims alleged against [Amato].”

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; claims arising from entirely separate events do not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction.

Ye v. Mukasey · filed 2009-11-04(a)

A court with original federal jurisdiction over certain claims has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “that are so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... “Accordingly, the state and federal claims here do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and the [C]ourt concludes that it should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims alleged against [Amato].” Taylor, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 29.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state vacation pay and bonus claims alongside an FLSA overtime claim when the claims require similar witnesses and evidence.

Chaluisan v. Simsmetal East LLC · filed 2010-03-23(a)

The fact that Plaintiffs FLSA and state common law claims will involve similar witnesses and evidence provides a strong rationale for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state common law claims.

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

TC INVESTMENTS, CORP. v. Becker · filed 2010-06-28(a)

Aside from the fact that both claims involve TCI, co-defendants, and the LLC’s, the Court finds nothing that indicates that the allegations contained in the counterclaim arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the allegations in the amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over defendants’ counterclaim.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Shirley v. JED CAPITAL, LLC · filed 2010-07-08(a)

Because Plaintiffs state law claims arise out of a “common nucleus of operative facts” with the federal claim in the case, the Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims as well.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as properly alleged federal claims.

Atlanta Independent School System v. S.F. · filed 2010-09-16(a)

As the Court has noted above, Plaintiffs have properly alleged claims under the ADA and Section 1983, therefore the Court does have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress because they arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiffs’ federal law claims.

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

Carroll v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2010-10-13(a)

Because his claims are based on a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court will thus exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his whistle-blower claim if he states section 301 LMRA claims in his amended complaint.

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

Simmons v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-11-09(a)

The Court finds that the housing claims do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact as the over-detention and body-cavity search claims. Each claim relies on an independent set of facts that would require independent proof. The Court, therefore, does not have supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs improper housing claims.

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

Elam v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. · filed 2011-03-15(a)

Moreover, the district court had ... supplemental jurisdiction over the Elams’ other state law claims because they all arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact, namely, the accident at the Pine Crest Road crossing.

Section 1367(a) requires a close factual nexus between claims; supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to third-party malpractice claims that do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the underlying bankruptcy claims.

Terlecky v. Baruch (In Re Baruch) · filed 2011-03-16(a)

In this matter, even if this Court has independent authority to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1367, there would be no basis for exercising supplementary jurisdiction because there is not a close nexus between the claims asserted by the Plaintiff and the claims asserted by Third Party Plaintiffs against the Third Party Defendant.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims.

Dixon v. International Federation of Accountants · filed 2011-03-25(a)

Dixon’s federal, state, and city claims are all based on her employment and termination by IFAC, and thus clearly derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over and decide her non-federal claims.

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

Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272 · filed 2011-04-21(a)

Furthermore, the federal claim and state claim must stem from the same “common nucleus of operative fact”; in other words, they must be such that the plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” ... Accordingly, assuming arguendo that any state-law claims exist, they are properly subject to the District Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Montefiore Medical Center v. Teamsters Local 272 · filed 2011-04-21(a)

(5) in the circumstances presented here, any remaining state-law claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims, and therefore, they are properly subject to the District Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim that lacks a common nucleus of operative fact with the claims under the court’s original jurisdiction.

Walker v. THI of New Mexico at Hobbs Center · filed 2011-05-20(a)

Because the Court finds that Walker’s claims and the Counterclaim do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Rodriguez v. Oriental Financial Group Inc. · filed 2011-07-14(a)

The Court accepts the unjust dismissal cause of action under Puerto Rico Law, 29 L.P.R.A. §§ 185a, et seq., based on supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Notwithstanding, the instant local severance cause of action stems from “a common nucleus of operative facts” as to the termination of the employment of Plaintiff.

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

United States Ex Rel. Head v. Kane Co. · filed 2011-07-25(a)

Relator’s FCA and state law claims, therefore, do arise from a common nucleus of facts and are properly tried in the same case. Accordingly, principles of judicial economy and fairness to the parties mandate the exercise of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.