28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim that remains to be decided.

Winfield v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2012-01-30(a)

Instead, at this time, plaintiff Shen has an individual claim under California law, over which the Court can properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the FLSA claim that remains to be decided in this action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when their facts substantially overlap with those of a federal claim or presentation of the federal claim would bring the state-claim facts before the court.

BLT Restaurant Group LLC v. Tourondel · filed 2012-02-22(a)

Rather, a sufficient relationship will be found if the facts pertinent to the federal and state claims substantially overlap or if “presentation of the federal claim necessarily [would bring] the facts underlying the state claim before the court.” ... In short, plaintiff satisfies the Article III test embodied in section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires a proposed intervenor’s claim to share a common nucleus of operative fact with the claims in the original action for supplemental jurisdiction to exist.

Bear Ranch, LLC v. Heartbrand Beef, Inc. · filed 2012-11-01(a)

Twinwood must therefore show the presence of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which grants such 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.” ... Twinwood cannot show that its claim and the claims in the original action are derived from 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 a federal claim properly before the court, including when other claims have been dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds.

Kermode v. University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2012-11-16(a)

We conclude that the two claims have a “common nucleus of operative fact.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725. The district court properly had federal- question jurisdiction over Kermode’s Ex parte Young claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims; it did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires comparing the facts underlying the federal and state claims to determine whether they share a common nucleus of operative fact; potential effects on compliance with a federal decree do not establish supplemental jurisdiction.

City of Atlanta v. City of Sandy Springs · filed 2012-11-19(a)

We take the nucleus of facts on which the federal question claims are based and compare it to the nucleus of facts on which the state law claims are based. We do not look at the results that may flow from the implications of finding that supplemental jurisdiction does not exist. It is not a results-oriented analysis, but a fact-oriented one.

Section 1367(a) requires claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; a state law claim’s potential effect on revenue used to comply with a federal decree does not establish supplemental jurisdiction.

Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta · filed 2012-11-19(a)

We take the nucleus of facts on which the federal question claims are based and compare it to the nucleus of facts on which the state law claims are based. We do not look at the results that may flow from the implications of finding that supplemental jurisdiction does not exist. It is not a results-oriented analysis, but a fact-oriented one.

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

De v. City of Chicago · filed 2012-12-14(a)

The Court concludes that De’s IHRA claims do derive from a common nucleus of operative facts as his § 1981 claim because they are all founded on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct, allegedly committed by the same defendants, under the same allegedly discriminatory conditions of employment at the CDOT. Therefore, the Court concludes that it does have subject matter jurisdiction over De’s national origin and sex discrimination claims brought under the IHRA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a single constitutional case or controversy whose claims share a common nucleus of operative facts, even as the relevant conduct crosses jurisdictional boundaries.

Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc. · filed 2013-03-12(a)

The common nucleus of operative facts underlying Shell’s claim for injunctive relief do not change when its vessels traverse an invisible line separating U.S. territorial waters from the waters of the U.S. EEZ, nor at the moment when its rigs detach from the seabed; this is therefore a single “case or controversy” for the purposes of § 1367(a), and we conclude that the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over it.

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

Bella v. Terrebonne Parish School Bo · filed 2013-06-20(a)

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims since those claims arose from the same set of facts as their federal claims.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; a general background dispute between the parties is insufficient.

Wisey's 1 LLC v. Nimellis Pizzeria LLC · filed 2013-07-09(a)

Because Nimellis’ common law counterclaims do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with Wisey’s Lanham Act claims, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the state and federal claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Woodard v. Town of Oakman · filed 2013-09-10(a)

The Court lacks the power to exercise jurisdiction over Woodard’s claim because it lacks a common nucleus of operative fact with the underlying Federal causes of action.

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact between state-law and federal claims; similar administration of separate plans does not suffice when the claims involve distinct legal issues and facts.

NJSR Surgical Center, L.L.C. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. · filed 2013-10-24(a)

A proper pendent claim is one that is “so related to claims in the action within original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The test is whether the claims have a “common nucleus of operative fact.” ... The legal issues in the federal and state claims, then, would be distinct. Moreover, the facts, even if Horizon’s administration of the two kinds of plans was similar, would not be identical. ... On this alternative ground, then, even if a waiver of sovereign immunity permitted the state-law contract claims to be asserted in federal court, I would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a state claim arising independently of the proceedings underlying the federal claim.

Fresno Unified School District v. K.U. · filed 2013-10-28(a)

Because A.D.U.’s request for amendments to KU.’s educational records occurred independently of the IEP proceedings that are the subject of the OAH order before this Court, her claim for a writ of mandate falls outside the scope of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not derive from the same nucleus of operative facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Venable v. Hilcorp Energy Company · filed 2013-12-30(a)

The claims the Venables assert against LWCC in their amended com- plaint do not derive from the same nucleus of operative facts as does their neg- ligence claim against Hillcorp. LWCC’s potential waiver of § 933(g)’s written- consent requirement occasioned by its conduct during and after a settlement conference depends on facts that are completely different from those related to any torts committed by Hillcorp years before. The district court therefore could not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the claims the Venables bring against LWCC.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when a claim shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Venable v. Hilcorp Energy Company · filed 2014-01-20(a)

The claims the Venables assert against LWCC in their amended com- plaint do not derive from the same nucleus of operative facts as does their neg- ligence claim against Hillcorp. LWCC’s potential waiver of § 933(g)’s written- consent requirement occasioned by its conduct during and after a settlement conference depends on facts that are completely different from those related to any torts committed by Hillcorp years before. The district court therefore could not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the claims the Venables bring against LWCC.

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

Adami v. Cardo Windows, Inc. · filed 2014-01-29(a)

Therefore, the Court finds the state law claims for breach of contract share a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction sufficient to establish supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against private individuals only when their alleged acts share a factual nucleus with the federal claims.

Snyder v. Smith · filed 2014-03-14(a)

As both the Bolens and Crockett point out in their motions to dismiss, the state law claims against private individuals for acts not within this common factual nucleus fall outside the scope of our supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim that presents the same issue as the original claim and shares a common nucleus of operative fact with it.

Sun Life & Health Insurance v. Colavito · filed 2014-03-28(a)

Because Nonmovants’ counterclaim requires the Court to resolve the very issue presented in the Interpleader Complaint, the Court has no trouble finding that the original claim and the counterclaim “stem from the same common nucleus of operative fact” such that they “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) requires claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim under original jurisdiction, regardless of whether they are pleaded as claims, counterclaims, crossclaims, cross-counterclaims, or setoffs.

LaChapelle v. Torres · filed 2014-08-07(a)

Instead, the Court must dismiss all claims that do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with Plaintiffs’ federal claims, regardless of whether they are pled as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, cross-counterclaim or setoff.

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 together.

Coria v. Recology, Inc. · filed 2014-08-07(a)

Plaintiff does not offer a substantive argument to the contrary, and the Court agrees that plaintiffs other state law claims all “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” as his meal period and overtime claims and “are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.”

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

Legacy Seating, Inc. v. Commercial Plastics Co. · filed 2014-08-20(a)

Because Legacy’s state law claims derive from the same common nucleus of operative facts as CPC’s federal law claims, Legacy’s state law claims are part of the same case or controversy, and thus the Court is authorized to decide them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim and would ordinarily be tried in the same proceeding.

McNeilly v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 2014-08-22(a)

Both the breach of contract claim and the retaliatory conduct claim are based on the same “nucleus of operative facts”—defendants breached their contract and engaged in retaliatory conduct by failing to interview Plaintiff or give her good faith consideration for the Assistant Chief position—and would “ordinarily be expected to be tried in one judicial proceeding.” Therefore, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same employment decision as federal discrimination claims.

Bagley v. Yale University · filed 2014-08-26(a)

Notwithstanding Defendants’ contentions to the contrary, I conclude without difficulty that Professor Bagley’s state law claims derive from the same “nucleus of operative fact” as her federal Title VII and ADEA claims. All of Bagley’s claims arise out of Yale’s decision not to renew her contract of employment and reappoint her to the SOM faculty.

Section 1367(a) requires supplemental claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims under original jurisdiction; a loose factual connection is insufficient.

Donahue v. . Tokyo Electron America, Inc. · filed 2014-08-27(a)

The Court agrees this “loose factual connection” exists, but disagrees it is sufficient to find these claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a breach of contract counterclaim when contract interpretation shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.

Geter v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2014-08-29(a)

The breach of contract counterclaim concerns the contracts purportedly in effect between Plaintiffs and Fly Low, the terms of which may be dispositive in Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. The interpretation of the contracts constitutes a “common nucleus of opérative fact” sufficient for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires claims within supplemental jurisdiction to share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Hayden v. Westfield Insurance Co · filed 2014-09-18(a)

But supplemental jurisdiction requires a “common nucleus of operative facts.” Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 760 (3d Cir. 1995). In light of the differences in time and subject matter between the Haydens’ claims against Westfield and their claims against DRS discussed above, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the claims lacked a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Langan v. United Services Automobile Ass'n · filed 2014-09-23(a)

Because the claims asserted against Verizon are not “so related” to the other claims in the complaint, they do not satisfy the requirements of § 1367(a) and therefore must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

TransCardiac Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yoganathan · filed 2014-11-14(a)

TCT’s nine state law claims do not fall within the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court under § 1367(a) because they do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact with the Third-Party claim for a declaration of patent inventor-ship.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the same operative facts as federal claims.

Hayes v. Bank of New York Mellon Ex Rel. CWABS Inc. · filed 2015-01-30(a)

The court could also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying state law claims, since both the state and federal claims were based on the same allegations regarding the Hayes’s Adjustable Rate Mortgage.

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

Bank Leumi USA v. Ehrlich · filed 2015-03-23(a)

The facts relating to Defendants’ claims for breach of contract and negligence plainly do not derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact as their other claims, which concern the contract signed by the parties in 2002 and the fallout from Defendants’ purchase of the Bonds in 2007.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims related to an FLSA claim when resolving both will involve substantial overlap in evidence about employment duties, hours, pay, records, and termination.

Tracy Coyne, Plaintiff v. The Trustees of Dartmouth College, Defendant · filed 2015-03-30(a)

But, on balance, the court is persuaded that plaintiff’s FLSA claim and her state common law claims are sufficiently related to vest this court with supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims - particularly given both binding and persuasive circuit precedent on this topic.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims involving some different parties when overlapping parties and conduct connect them to the federal claims.

Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio v. HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n · filed 2015-03-31(a)

Although there are parties who worked with the PSA Trusts, and not the Indenture Trusts, this does not remove the state claims from the ambit of the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Springer v. Nannie O'Neal Senior Apartments · filed 2015-04-01(a)

In order for pendent jurisdiction to exist, the federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to a federal claim, and the relationship between the federal claim and the state claim is such that they derive from a common nucleus of operative facts so that a plaintiff would normally be expected to try all of his claims in one setting.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when substantial evidentiary overlap with federal claims gives them a common nucleus of operative fact.

Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, Inc. · filed 2015-04-06(a)

As a practical matter, the Court finds that there is a substantial overlap of evidence between the federal and state claims and therefore a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when its underlying facts substantially overlap with those of federal patent counterclaims.

Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC · filed 2015-06-16(a)

Here, the facts underlying Duro’s patent law counterclaims do indeed substantially overlap with'the facts underlying Crye’s First Cause of Action, for breach of contract.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same set of facts as a federal claim properly before the court.

Olson v. Bemis Company, Incorporated · filed 2015-08-25(a)

District courts “may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share ‘a common nucleus of operative facts’ with a federal claim properly before the court.” Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The district court held that if Olson’s other state-law claims were not preempted, they arose out of the same set of facts as the claim for breach of a written contract and therefore were properly before the court. The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, Bailey, 779 F.3d at 696, and we see no abuse of discretion here.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against defendants with no surviving federal claim against them when those claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with a surviving federal claim against other defendants.

Magnotti v. Crossroads Healthcare Management, LLC · filed 2015-09-03(a)

Although the Court has dismissed all federal claims against Paolucci and Marzigliano, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ... the remaining claims against them because they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” with the undismissed federal claim against Crossroads, ProScript, and DeBarto-lome, making them "part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that arises from the same nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim.

Rojas v. GMD Airlines Services, Inc. · filed 2015-09-09(a)

But because this state law claim and Cruz’s retaliation case arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, namely, the withholding of his final liquidation paycheck, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a state wage claim that lacks a common nucleus of operative fact with the remaining federal employment claims.

West v. J.O. Stevenson, Inc. · filed 2016-02-24(a)

Neither Claim I, nor Claim III, share such a common nucleus of operative fact with Claim V to support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over that claim under § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage-deduction claims that arise from the same compensation policies and practices as federal wage claims.

Humphrey v. RAV Investigative & Security Services Ltd. · filed 2016-03-11(a)

As to supplemental jurisdiction, Humphrey’s § 193 and FLSA claims “form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as they “clearly derive from ... a common nucleus of operative facts since they arise out of the same compensation policies and practices of [RAV]” with respect to Humphrey over a particular time period, Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234, 245 (2d Cir.2011).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party complaint when its claims and the action within original jurisdiction derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Watson v. Cartee · filed 2016-03-21(a)

Turning to the jurisdictional question, we conclude that the district court possessed supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. ... The operative facts necessary to resolve the merits of the third-party complaint are therefore common to those needed to resolve the proper distribution of the surplus proceeds that resulted from the foreclosure sale.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, even when proof may differ among the underlying trusts.

Blackrock Allocation Target Shares: Series S Portfolio v. Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2016-03-25(a)

Plaintiffs’ claims therefore share a common nucleus of operative fact, and this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims relating to the PSA trusts.

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

Dezmond Emeson, V Dept. Of Corrections · filed 2016-05-03(a)

Because Emeson’s federal claims and state claims are based on the same nucleus of operative facts, the federal court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Emeson’s state law claims.

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a state law claim that does not share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

Walton v. Secretary Veterans Administration · filed 2016-05-11(a)

Any alleged malpractice by ADVA also does not “stem from the same common nucleus of operative fact” as any possible Section 1983 claim, or other federal causes of action.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; a general relationship between the claims is insufficient for supplemental jurisdiction.

Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, LLC · filed 2016-07-21(a)

Because the state-law claims only generally relate to the federal patent claim, a “common nucleus of operative fact” does not exist.

Section 1367(a) reaches claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact, leaving the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Kobold v. Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center · filed 2016-08-09(a)

All three of Barr’s claims “have ‘a common nucleus of operative fact.’” Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 245 (2007) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction when state and federal claims share a loose factual connection, including a common underlying act and overlapping evidence.

Birdo v. Gomez · filed 2016-10-17(a)

Here, Plaintiffs claims— both state and federal — derive from the same underlying act: Plaintiffs October 2012 hunger strike. All of the purported misconduct occurred within a limited time-frame (between February 3, 2013 and March 7, 2013), and was allegedly inspired by the same motive to break Plaintiffs resolve. While some evidence regarding each claim will undoubtedly be unique, other evidence — including details surrounding Plaintiffs strike and Stateville’s hunger strike procedures — will overlap. This is sufficient to meet the “loose factual connection” standard.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within original jurisdiction; a general relationship to the federal claim is insufficient.

AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Medical, LLC · filed 2016-11-08(a)

Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims that do not arise from the same nucleus of facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Picard v. HSBC Bank PLC (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC) · filed 2016-12-14(a)

The Court concludes that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the cross-claims at the time they were asserted because the Trustee’s claims and the cross-claims do not arise out of the same nucleus of 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 for supplemental jurisdiction to exist.

Frederick v. New York · filed 2017-02-03(a)

Under the “common nucleus of operative fact” standard, the claim of assault alleged against Defendant Germain does not fall within the ambit of this 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.

Lath v. Manchester Police Dept., et al. · filed 2017-03-23(a)

For supplemental jurisdiction to be proper, the state law claims against Mullen and Cox must share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims that plaintiff asserts in Cause 1.

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

Sanjeev Lath v. Manchester Police Department, Gerald Dufresne, Dorothy Vachon BMS CAT, Amica Mutual Insurance Co., and J · filed 2017-06-12(a)

Because Lath has failed to adequately allege a common nucleus of operative fact underlying the claims he asserts in Causes 1 and 19, the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the conspiracy claim Lath asserts in Cause 19.

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

Jones v. Changsila · filed 2017-09-20(a)

The Court therefore concludes that Jones’s FLSA and common law claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with claims that present a federal question.

Turbeville v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · filed 2017-11-01(a)

Thus, each of Turbeville’s claims for relief involves a “common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 1138 (1966). Hence, to the extent that any of his claims do not turn on resolution of a federal question—here, FINRA’s regulatory conduct under federal securities law—the District Court still had supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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.

Tam v. Qualcomm, Inc. · filed 2018-01-16(a)

The Court finds that all of Plaintiff's state law claims revolve around his termination at Qualcomm, which he alleges was wrongful. Having found subject matter jurisdiction, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a conversion counterclaim arising from alleged theft of an employer’s property when it does not share a common nucleus of operative facts with the employee’s wage claims.

Isom v. Muhammad · filed 2018-03-09(a)

The Court finds that the conversion claims in the counterclaim and the FLSA and AMWA claims in the complaint do not derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against an additional party when those claims and the original federal claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

D'Onofrio v. Vacation Publications, I · filed 2018-04-23(a)

Thus, the question whether Karen was entitled to FMLA leave—or, more to the point, whether she misused her leave in order to start a competing enterprise with Michael— derives from the same nucleus of operative facts as Vacation’s claims against Michael. Accordingly, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Vacation’s state-law claims against Michael.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law counterclaims whose only factual connection to federal wage claims is the parties’ employment relationship.

Ader v. Simonmed Imaging Inc. · filed 2018-06-04(a)

Indeed, the two sets of claims overlap only insofar as each arises from Ader's employment relationship with SMI. Such a relationship is insufficient to establish supplemental jurisdiction over SMI's counterclaims.

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

Schaefer v. Fu · filed 2018-06-21(a)

The claims against Fu and Boston University do not arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts. ... Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' four state law claims against defendant Fu.

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.

Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. RD Legal Funding, LLC · filed 2018-06-21(a)

These facts establish that the federal- and state-law claims "arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact" such that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the NYAG's state-law claims would be appropriate.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when an employment relationship is its only link to the federal claims.

Roy Carlus Riley & J&R Mfg., Inc. v. Barringer · filed 2018-10-09(a)

However, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Barringer's third cause of action. The employer-employee relationship is the sole link between this cause of action and the federal claims in this case. Accordingly, I will dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Barringer's cause of action alleging conversion, breach of express or implied contract, and unjust enrichment against both J & R and Riley regarding the personal property she took to her workplace.

Section 1367 extends supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

Hart v. Knockerball MidMO LLC · filed 2018-10-15(a)

Here, all the state law claims in this cause of action are within the supplemental jurisdiction of the Court. The RICO claim alleges that the third-party defendants conspired to defraud Atlantic during the insurance procurement and underwriting process, and then attempted to conceal their scheme by preventing Atlantic from getting notice of Mr. Hart’s claim against Knockerball. All of the state law claims, including the garnishment claim, arise out of the same core of operative facts, i.e., the procurement of the insurance policy and Atlantic’s failure to defend Knockerball.

Section 1367(a) requires claims to be sufficiently factually related to support supplemental jurisdiction; claims arising from the same employment relationship do not necessarily meet that requirement.

Lawton v. Weil Foot and Ankle Institute, LLC · filed 2018-11-06(a)

Because the Court concludes that the claims are not sufficiently related to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court need not weigh factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

Woods v. Maryville Academy · filed 2018-11-19(a)

Because Woods sufficiently stated federal claims under § 1983, this Court re- tains jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims for negligence (Count IV), re- spondeat superior (Count V), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VI) because all claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Bell v. Cook County · filed 2018-11-21(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law negligence claim against the Sheriff and Cook County because it arises from the same nucleus of operative fact as the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Officer Mineo and Dr. Khan.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over an attorney fee-sharing contract dispute that is not factually interdependent with the underlying federal claims.

Community Bank of NV v. · filed 2018-12-20(a)

First, SSEM’s breach of contract claim is not factually interdependent with the federal claims asserted in CBNV.

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

Blakely v. Andrade · filed 2019-01-23(a)

The state and federal claims form part of the same case or controversy or derive from one common nucleus of operative fact. Accordingly, the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Husband's state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact; an employer-employee relationship alone does not establish supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim related to an FLSA claim.

Jones v. Addictive Behavioral Change Health Grp., LLC · filed 2019-01-31(a)

First, the Court notes that the employer-employee relationship alone is insufficient to create a common nucleus of operative fact between an FLSA claim and a state law claim.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim arising from facts separate from the federal claims, even when the parties are the same.

Young v. Axis Welding & Machine Works, Inc. · filed 2019-05-03(a)

For these reasons, the Court finds that Axis’ counterclaim does not meet the test for supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that does not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims.

Moretto v. Tazewell County Sheriff's Office · filed 2019-05-29(a)

As such, supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim is unsuitable, as the claim falls outside the criteria outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as claims within their original jurisdiction.

Fozard v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. · filed 2019-05-31(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) since they arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Hamner v. Tuscaloosa County School System · filed 2019-07-10(a)

Here, the federal and state claims clearly derive from “a common nucleus of operative facts” pertaining to the allegedly sexually-hostile environment at a middle school. See PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 1299, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016). As a result, the court can exercise jurisdiction over the battery claims against Henson.

Section 1367(a) requires comparing the nature and basis of contract claims to determine whether they form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Auto Logistics of Atlanta, Inc. v. Auto Driveaway Richmond, LLC · filed 2019-07-22(a)

Determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a contract claim requires comparing the nature and basis of that claim to the nature and basis of the contract claim(s) over which the court has diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative fact as claims within their original jurisdiction.

Colvin v. Leblanc · filed 2019-07-22(a)

To the extent that Colvin has alleged state law claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over such related claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Vasquez v. Richland School District · filed 2019-08-06(a)

When a court has original federal jurisdiction over one of a plaintiff’s claims, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share a “common nucleus of operative facts” with the federal claim.

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.

Felder v. MGM National Harbor, LLC · filed 2019-08-15(a)

Because all of Felder’s claims arise from incidents that allegedly occurred during her period of employment at National Harbor, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in her Complaint.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same employment relationship as a federal claim when they share a common nucleus of operative facts.

Van Bebber v. Dignity Health · filed 2019-08-30(a)

Even more significantly, all of plaintiff’s claims appear to arise out of the same employment relationship that gives rise to plaintiff’s overtime claim. Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under these circumstances could result in parallel proceedings regarding the same nucleus of operative facts, one in state court and the other in federal court.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; a shared employment relationship, parties, and time frame alone do not suffice.

Jenkins v. Yellowstone Properties, Inc. · filed 2019-09-12(a)

While Plaintiff is correct that both sets of claims arise from the same employment relationship; that “the parties involved” are the same across all claims; and that “the time frame of the events is the same with regard to all claims,” see Dkt. 43 at 1, those facts do not establish the common nucleus of operative fact necessary for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state claims whose operative facts are separate from those of the federal claims.

Bhatia v. Vaswani · filed 2019-09-25(a)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Counts V through X in the second amended complaint, and over Counts I through V in the first amended counterclaim and third-party complaint.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; a loose connection through damages does not satisfy its same case or controversy requirement.

Frazier v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2019-10-03(a)

Any loose connection between the damages claimed in the Title VII claim and the factual underpinnings of the state law claim is insufficient to satisfy the “same case or controversy” requirement for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over factually distinct state law claims merely because they arise during pending federal litigation between the same parties.

Espinoza v. City of Seattle · filed 2019-10-09(a)

The mere fact that the parties have a pre-existing relationship is not enough to bless factually distinct state law claims with supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a defamation claim when the alleged falsity of the published statements implicates facts and evidence underlying the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction, forming a common nucleus of operative fact.

Leichty v. Bethel College · filed 2019-10-28(a)

The alleged falsity of the statements published by Nofziger implicates facts and evidence pertaining to the underlying events at the conference itself, such that the defamation claim arises from a common nucleus of facts and forms part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367 requires state claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim, rather than merely a tangential connection, and permits declining jurisdiction when state issues substantially predominate in scope and proof.

Saud v. DePaul University · filed 2019-10-29(a), (c)(2)

In sum, none of the facts necessary to resolution of the state law claims are more than tangentially related to sole remaining federal claim. Therefore, the Court concludes that it lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV through IX in the amended complaint. ... Therefore, even if the Court had supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV through IX, the Court would decline to exercise it at this time, as those state law claims would predominate over the lone federal claim in Count III.

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

(PS) Mackintosh v. Lyft, Inc. · filed 2019-11-01(a)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s numerous state–law claims appear to arise out of the same nucleus of facts as his federal claims, and so the Court maintains supplemental jurisdiction over the state–law claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to an employer’s fiduciary-duty counterclaim against an employee bringing an FLSA claim when the claims share only the employment relationship and require entirely different factual discovery.

Kirk v. Dev Hotels LLC · filed 2019-11-06(a)

The Court agrees that it would be inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaim. Notably, considerations of judicial economy and fairness do not dictate that these issues be resolved in one lawsuit. Discovery for Plaintiff’s claim will focus on Plaintiff’s status as an employee, the hours she worked, whether an exemption applies to determine whether she is owed wages and overtime, and whether any violations by Defendants were willful. Conversely, Defendants’ counterclaim would demand entirely different discovery related to the alleged “subvert hotel business operations” and drug-dealing engaged in by Plaintiff on Defendants’ property.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the same operative facts as federal claims.

Hains v. Adams · filed 2019-11-12(a)

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over Counts III, [V and V of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because those Counts raise claims based on the same operative facts as Plaintiff's federal claims.

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

Jones v. McShan · filed 2019-11-15(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), so long as the state claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” with the original federal claims. Wisc. v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress arise out of the same events occurring at Menard that gave rise to his federal claims. As such, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this additional state law claim.

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

Precision Contracting Solutions, Lp v. Angi Homeservices, Inc. · filed 2019-11-19(a)

The state law claims asserted in Counts Two through Four thus “‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’ and thus form part of the same Article III case or controversy” as the federal law claim, Lindsay v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416, 424 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 761 (3d Cir.1995)), making supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Two, Three, and Four proper, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[T]he district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”); see also, e.g., City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997) (concluding that supplemental jurisdiction is proper where the claims arise out of the same event).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law medical-care claim based on the same allegations of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as an Eighth Amendment claim.

Scott v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2019-11-27(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim because the state law claim and the above Eighth Amendment claim are based upon the same allegations of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on the same operative facts as surviving federal claims.

Marcavage v. City of Chicago · filed 2006-12-14(a)

Because those federally based theories are not vulnerable to dismissal, however, this Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ invocation of the Act, based as it is on the same operative facts (see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same set of operative facts as a claim within federal jurisdiction.

Evanoff v. Banner Mattress Co., Inc. · filed 2007-11-16(a)

As all claims arise out of the same set of operative facts, the court may consider the remaining counts via its supplemental jurisdictional authority.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same underlying transaction or occurrence.

Einhorn v. J & S, INC. · filed 2008-09-22(a)

The remaining claims by J & S against Eckerd are part of the same underlying transaction or occurrence, namely the withdrawal of J & S from the multiemployer plan, and therefore, they remain within the Court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over common law tort claims that arise from the same set of alleged facts as a federal § 1983 claim.

Marcus v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-08-20(a)

The Court, of course, has discretionary jurisdiction over Marcus's pendent common law tort claims (Counts I through VI) because these claims arise from the same set of alleged facts as the federal § 1983 claim (Count VII).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims arising from the same set of facts as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Healy · filed 2010-10-07(a)

In addition, Plaintiffs concede their remaining claims arise out of the same set of facts as their claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, and, therefore, to the extent those claims are not preempted by patent law, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim; the factual connection need only be loose.

Springer v. Nannie O'Neal Senior Apts. · filed 2015-04-01(a)

In order for pendent jurisdiction to exist, the federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to a federal claim, and the relationship between the federal claim and the state claim is such that they derive from a common nucleus of operative facts so that a plaintiff would normally be expected to try all of his claims in one setting.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims that share the same nucleus of operative fact with claims completely preempted by federal law.

Spear Marketing, Incorporated v. BancorpSouth Bank · filed 2015-06-30(a)

The district court, having concluded that two of SMI’s claims were preempted, declined to consider whether its eight remaining claims were also preempted. Finding instead that all of SMI’s claims derive from the same nucleus of operative fact, it exercised supplemental jurisdiction over those remaining eight claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the non-preempted claims was not error.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as federal claims.

TLS Management v. Rodriguez-Toledo · filed 2016-12-22(a)

Each of the state-law claims in the amended complaint “arise from the same nucleus of operative facts” as the federal claims, and so supplemental jurisdiction will be exercised over those claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court with federal question jurisdiction to hear state law claims arising from the same factual circumstances, even without complete diversity.

TargetSmart Holdings, LLC v. GHP ADVISORS, LLC · filed 2019-02-06(a)

Since the state law claims arise out of the same set of factual circumstances, I may exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear those claims, even in the absence of complete diversity of the parties.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same employment as a federal ADEA claim.

Pastene v. Long Cove Club of HHI, S.C. · filed 2019-12-10(a)

The Court has federal question Jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADEA claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which on the face of the complaint also arise out of his employment by Long Cove Club.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against neighbors when their alleged complaints and a federal claim challenging municipal inspections share a common nucleus of operative facts.

Hutchings v. Knight · filed 2019-12-19(a)

The federal and state-law claims also share a common nucleus of operative facts: The code enforcement officers’ demand to inspect Plaintiffs’ home is presumably tied to the barrage of complaints allegedly made against them. Since Plaintiffs’ claims are such that they “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding,” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Defendants Cochran and Knight.

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

Perdomo v. 113-117 Realty, LLC · filed 2019-12-20(a)

Furthermore, plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, as required for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's state law claims for unpaid compensation and other NYLL violations.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law tort claims sharing a loose factual connection with a federal unlawful-seizure claim through the circumstances leading up to, during, and immediately after the same arrest.

Molina v. Latronico · filed 2019-12-27(a)

Here, the state law claims all have (at least) a “loose factual connection” to the underlying § 1983 claim for unlawful seizure—they are all related to the circumstances leading up to, facts of, and immediate aftermath of Molina’s arrest on September 30, 2016. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims and third-party claims that substantially overlap with or arise from the same basic facts as the main claims within the court’s diversity jurisdiction.

AMUSEMENT INDUSTRY, INC. v. Stern · filed 2011-03-11(a)

Thus, it is clear that Egert’s cross-claims “substantially overlap[]” with or “arise from the same basic facts” as the claims made by Amusement against Egert in the main complaint. ... In sum, for the above reasons we may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over both Egert’s and Safrin’s claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law defamation and tortious interference counterclaims arising from the same alleged campaign to disrupt film production as a federal Stored Communications Act counterclaim.

Skypoint Advisors, LLC. v. 3 Amigos Productions LLC. · filed 2020-01-07(a)

As the three counterclaims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court finds it has supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation and tortious interference claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

A shared employment relationship alone does not establish the common nucleus of operative fact required for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims in a federal wage action.

Troung v. Garden View Townhomes LLC · filed 2020-01-09(a)

The fact that all alleged claims and counterclaims arise out of the same employment relationship, alone, is insufficient to conclude that they share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with federal-law claims.

Siri v. White · filed 2020-01-21(a)

Because that claim also arises out of the denial of plaintiff’s HELOC application, it and the federal-law claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Therefore, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are related to the federal claims and arise out of a common nucleus of related facts.

Jones v. Association for Rehabilitative Case Management and Supported Housing Program, Inc. · filed 2020-01-30(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Plaintiff’s federal and state law claims are related and arise out of a common nucleus of related facts.

Section 1367(a) requires a party asserting state-law defamation counterclaims to allege specific facts showing a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims; merely asserting that the claims concern the same investment is insufficient.

Abrams v. Blackburne and Sons Realty Capital Corporation · filed 2020-01-31(a)

The Court accordingly cannot tell, on the basis of these allegations, whether or not it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the BSR defendants’ defamation counterclaims pursuant to § 1367. Since the BSR defendants bear the burden to allege facts that affirmatively invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the counterclaims as currently plead for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state property damage claim arising from the same attempted telephone repair as a federal claim for inadequate telephone service.

Yourman v. Verizon Communications-Telecommunications Corporation · filed 2020-02-03(a)

Thus, the two claims are related, arising from the same set of facts, and the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s property damage claim against Santos.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only if they share a common nucleus of operative fact with a surviving claim within original jurisdiction.

Rutherford v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · filed 2020-02-04(a)

Accordingly, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims that do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact as the First Amendment retaliation claim against Capt. Thomalen.

Section 1367 excludes unsafe-housing negligence claims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with federal wage claims and permits declining jurisdiction over related state wage claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Kaplan v. Wings of Hope Residence, Inc. · filed 2020-02-07(a), (c)(3)

Accordingly, the negligence claim does not meet the same “case or controversy requirement” of Section 1367(a), and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. ... Having already dismissed the Plaintiff’s FLSA claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims.

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

Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC · filed 2020-02-10(a)

With regard to Mr. Cur- ry’s remaining three claims for fraud, unfair competition, and trademark infringement arising under state law, amicus counsel for Mr. Curry submits that subject matter jurisdiction exists over those claims as well because the state and federal claims share a “common nucleus of opera- tive fact.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), and they are part of the “same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). We agree. Thus, the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims involving independently provable conduct that shares only basic background facts with the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

M.M.A. Design LLC v. Capella Space Corporation · filed 2020-02-18(a)

It is entirely possible for MMA to prove its claims of trade secret misappropriation without ever reaching the facts relating to Mr. Donovan’s actions undertaken as Custodian, and it is entirely possible for Mr. Harvey to prove his counterclaims relating to Mr. Donovan’s actions as Custodian without ever touching upon the facts relating to his actions involving MMA’s trade secrets. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the two sets of claims share any common facts (beyond basic background facts about the existence of MMA and Mr. Harvey’s ownership and employment there).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over off-campus assault and battery claims when the alleged conduct is highly relevant to assessing a college's response under Title IX.

Pogorzelska v. VanderCook College of Music · filed 2020-03-02(a)

Here, the overlap between the investigation into the claim and the facts of the sexual battery allegation is both clear and strong. We follow Ammerman’s reasoning and hold that the factual allegations underlying the extent of Ballenger’s conduct are highly relevant to assess whether VanderCook’s response was appropriate. See Ammerman, 54 F.3d at 425. ... Thus, we hold that accepting supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state tort claims of assault and battery claims against Ballenger would be appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). We accept supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) permits retention of a state-law tort claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a surviving federal claim.

DOE v. Township High School District No. 214 · filed 2020-03-06(a)

Because the Court retains federal question jurisdiction, it will not dismiss John’s state-law tort claim, which derives from the same nucleus of operative fact—his alleged treatment at the hands of BGHS administrators.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims linked to federal claims only by speculative allegations of a broader conspiracy, without a common nucleus of operative fact.

Osei v. Standard Chartered Bank · filed 2020-03-17(a)

Thus, since there is no factual or legal overlap, the claims do not share a common nucleus of operative fact to support supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant whose federal claims have been dismissed when those claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with remaining federal claims against other defendants.

A.S. v. OCEAN COUNTY FIRE ACADEMY · filed 2020-03-30(a)

The Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against Defendant because they arise under the same common nucleus of operative fact as the remaining jurisdiction-invoking claims against Ocean County Defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that derives from a common nucleus of operative fact with the original federal claims.

Gully, Jr. v. Hundley · filed 2020-03-30(a)

As noted in the threshold order, the Court exercises its supplement jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), because it is a claim which “derive[s] from a common nucleus of operative fact” with the original federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed when those claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with surviving federal claims, including claims arising from a continuous chain of events.

Vivar v. New York City Police Department · filed 2020-03-30(a)

However, because federal claims survive against Sears and Diaz, it is clear that any state law claims Plaintiff asserts against Self Help and Soto, which arise out of the same “nucleus of operative fact,” are “properly subject to [this] [c]ourt’s supplemental jurisdiction.” Montefiore, 642 F.3d at 333. I also find it appropriate to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against NYPH, GSH, and Kostopoulos, as the events giving rise to the claims against them arise out of the same continuous chain of events.

Section 1367 requires a common nucleus of operative facts rather than mere factual background and permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims would predominate over federal claims.

Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. · filed 2020-03-30(a), (c)(2)

Plaintiffs’ allegedly inadequate training may provide “factual background” for their limited duties as FA’s, but that is not enough to confer supplemental jurisdiction. ... Moreover, even if the FLSA and contract claims did arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact, the Court would decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the state claims as they would dominate the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state claims causally linked to federal claims when their evidentiary overlap is insufficient to establish a common nucleus of operative facts.

Carne v. Stanislaus County Animal Services Agency · filed 2020-03-31(a)

As there is insufficient evidentiary overlap in this case, no common nucleus of operative facts exists such that the state claims forms part of the same case or controversy with the federal claim. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to consider the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party claim alleging placement of the allegedly defective product that caused the injury underlying the original products-liability claims because the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Breeze v. Bayco Products, Inc. · filed 2020-04-09(a)

The Court also exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party claim against G&R Family Investments because the claim against G&R is “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “Claims form part of the same case or controversy when they ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.’” McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., 760 F.3d 674, 683 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). “To satisfy this requirement, a ‘loose factual connection between the claims is generally sufficient.’” Id. (quoting Baer v. First Options of Chicago, Inc., 72 F.3d 1294, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995)). Here, it is alleged that G&R placed the Bayco clamp light, which is the subject of the products liability suit, in the crawlspace of the decedent’s property where a fire occurred.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims, supported by substantial overlap in evidence and witnesses.

Linebarger v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC · filed 2020-04-22(a)

Nonetheless, the Court finds that supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate because the claims are derived from a common nucleus of operative facts – the way in which GPI paid Linebarger during his employment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Furthermore, the evidence and witnesses presented for the claims will have substantial overlap.

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

Mendoza v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2020-04-28(a)

Moreover, the Court agrees with Mendoza that the FCRA claims do not arise out of the same nucleus of fact as the FLSA claim, and therefore, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FCRA claims.

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

Skypoint Advisors, LLC. v. 3 Amigos Productions LLC. · filed 2020-05-11(a)

The Court considered the arguments but ultimately determined it had jurisdiction over the SCA counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation and tortious interference counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). (Doc. #151, pp. 14-16.) Specifically, the Court found all three counterclaims arose out of a common nucleus of operative fact, i.e., the circumstances surrounding the production of the film. (Id. p. 16.) The Court re-adopts this reasoning and conclusion.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal wage claims, even when the claims cover different periods.

Huang v. Shanghai City Corp · filed 2020-05-11(a)

The NYLL claims therefore arise out of the “same common nucleus of operative fact” as the FLSA claims.

Section 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same nucleus of facts as federal claims.

Doe v. Washington County Department of Education · filed 2020-05-13(a)

The Court is authorized to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims as they arise from the same nucleus of facts as his federal due process claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1753 (2019); Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). For that reason, Defendant’s assertion that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is without merit.

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

Douglas v. Sentel Corporation · filed 2020-05-20(a)

Subject matter jurisdiction is proper because plaintiff brings claims “arising under” a federal statute, Title VII, and supplemental jurisdiction may be exercised over plaintiff's state law claims because plaintiff's state law claims share “a common nucleus of operative fact” with plaintiffs Title VII claims.

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

Billy v. Edge Homes · filed 2020-05-21(a)

Here, Plaintiff’s state law civil assault, civil battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Maddox share a common nucleus of operative facts with her Title VII sex discrimination claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state defamation claim when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, and judicial economy favors hearing it.

Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated · filed 2020-06-08(a)

Because plaintiff’s Count Nine defamation claim and her federal law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to hear the defamation claim in this case, the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’ s state law claim for defamation.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts; claims that merely provide background for the federal claims do not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction.

DASILVA v. INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES · filed 2020-06-09(a)

The Court finds that the state law battery claim and the Title VII claims do not share the required common nucleus of operative facts and that the claims are not sufficiently connected to enable the Court to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds that it does not have supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' battery claim.

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

D.C. v. PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2020-06-15(a)

As to disability discrimination, D.C.’s PHRA claim is based on the same nucleus of facts as D.C.’s § 504 and ADA claims. D.C.’s ADA claim in Count II is presently dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but D.C.’s § 504 claim in Count I remains. The Court thus can properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the disability-based portion of Count VII.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim arising from the same nucleus of facts as a claim within its federal-question jurisdiction.

Mallory v. Lease Supervisors, LLC · filed 2020-06-24(a)

This court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because their state-law contract claim is part of the same nucleus of facts as the FLSA claim on which jurisdiction in this case is predicated.

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

Fitzgerald v. P.L. Marketing, Inc. · filed 2020-07-02(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Ohio and Kentucky state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Those claims derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact” with Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims.

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

S J Associated Pathologists v. Cigna Healthcare of · filed 2020-07-06(a)

All of SJAP’s claims against Cigna arise from or concern the In-Network Agreement and the resulting business relationship. SJAP’s federal claim against the Insight Defendants, by contrast, was based on SJAP’s purchase of securities from Insight as part of the Lab Operating Agreement, a completely separate contract that had nothing to do with Cigna that was consummated several years before the events giving rise to SJAP’s claims against Cigna. ... The standard for supplemental jurisdiction is clearly not met here.

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

ETDO Productions, LLC v. Cruz · filed 2020-07-10(a)

Therefore, both sets of claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact and Disco’s counterclaim falls under the umbrella of this Court's supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within its original jurisdiction.

Colacino v. Davis · filed 2020-07-13(a)

Nevertheless, this claim derives from a common nucleus of operative fact as plaintiffs’ other claims, and, as such, falls within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ defamation claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim sufficiently related to federal claims through a common nucleus of operative fact.

Wass v. Amerigroup Texas, Inc. · filed 2020-08-03(a)

The claims are sufficiently related for purposes of section 1367(a), and this Court may properly hear the state law claim under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to defamation counterclaims when the only factual link to wage claims is the parties’ employment relationship.

Acker v. States Mortgage Company, Inc. · filed 2020-08-13(a)

As such, the Court finds the employer-employee relationship is not sufficient to establish a common nucleus of operative fact between the claims and counterclaims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims sharing a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims even when the counterclaims involve additional evidence.

McBowman v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19(a)

While it is true that Sony’s claims will involve evidence not implicated by Mtume’s claims, the Court nonetheless finds a common nucleus of facts.

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

Felix v. Service Insurance Company · filed 2020-08-28(a)

Even if plaintiffs’ state law fraud claim was not expressly preempted, the federal questions raised by this case would enable the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ purported state law claim, owing to “a common nucleus of operative fact” with the federal claims arising under the SFIP.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims that lack a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims; the parties’ employment relationship alone is insufficient.

Moll v. Telesector Resources Group, Inc. · filed 2020-09-18(a)

These counterclaims do not share a nucleus of operative facts for this Court to have supplemental jurisdiction over them, see Torres, supra, 628 F. Supp. 2d at 468.

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

Robertson v. REP Processing, LLC. d/b/a Rimrock Energy Partners · filed 2020-09-24(a)

The Court finds that, because all of the claims involve the question of liability for plaintiff’s FLSA claims, the claims are sufficiently related so as to find that they arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact. Taking into consideration judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, see Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350, the Court will exercise its discretion to find that it has supplemental jurisdiction over Rimrock’s third- party claims.

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

Levey v. Wetherall · filed 2020-09-29(a)

And the court has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Levey’s state-law claims because they all derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with the RICO claim: Mr. Wetherall’s fraudulent advertisement and sale of the Camaro.

Section 1367(a) requires permissive state-law counterclaims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims; overlap in parties, business relationship, and timing alone is insufficient.

Zap Cellular, Inc. v. Weintraub · filed 2020-09-30(a)

The Court further holds that the counterclaims do not “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and that the Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims.

Schwartz v. Sensi, LLC · filed 2020-09-30(a)

As they relate to Odeon, Plaintiff’s Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth causes of action for unjust enrichment, estoppel, civil conspiracy and constructive fraud, and fraudulent conveyance also do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims. ... Accordingly, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims against Odeon.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

NGUYEN v. KARAG FORD SOUTH · filed 2020-10-14(a)

All of Plaintiff’s claims share a common nucleus of operative fact and arise from the same case or controversy. Therefore, because there is a federal claim here establishing proper jurisdiction, Plaintiff can bring non-federal causes of action through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Park v. Direct Energy GP, L.L.C. · filed 2020-10-19(a)

Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The question, then, is whether Direct Energy’s counterclaim is so related to Park’s FMLA claims that they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Direct Energy admits that its counterclaim is permissive and has no factual connection to Park’s FMLA claims. Thus, the district court lacked subject- matter jurisdiction over Direct Energy’s counterclaim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same employment relationship and nucleus of operative facts as claims within federal jurisdiction.

Garcia v. Wine Group, LLC. · filed 2020-11-03(a)

Even more significantly, all of plaintiff’s claims appear to arise out of the same employment relationship that gives rise to plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim. ... The court will therefore exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over plaintiffs state law causes of action brought in this case that are not subject to preemption under § 301 of the LMRA.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over sufficiently stated state-law claims arising from the same set of facts as a valid federal claim.

Holland v. Milone · filed 2020-11-09(a)

Courts may exercise what is called supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share “a common nucleus of operative facts” with a valid federal claim. Bailey v. City of Chi., 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. §1367. Because the plaintiff’s state law claims arise out the same set of facts, the court will screen those potential claims and exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that the plaintiff sufficiently states in the complaint.