28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(a) requires state-law claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim under original jurisdiction; claims against a different defendant arising from distinct events do not qualify.

Bell v. SL Green Realty Corp. · filed 2021-02-11(a)

“[D]isputes are part of the same case or controversy within § 1367 when they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 464 F.3d 328, 335 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the state law claims are asserted against a different defendant than the defendant of the surviving § 1981 claim and are factually distinct claims arising out of different events.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim when it lacks a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claim.

Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Crown Resources Corporation · filed 2021-02-19(a)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Crown’s counterclaim does not “form part of the same case or controversy” for purposes of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share sufficiently similar facts, witnesses, and evidence with federal claims, even if the connection is attenuated.

Ritchie v. Matthew A. Dolman, P.A. · filed 2021-02-19(a)

Although the connection between these events is potentially attenuated, the Court agrees with the Report that the allegations in Counts 7 and 8 share sufficiently similar facts, witnesses and evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s federal claims of discrimination and retaliation in Counts 1 and 2.

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.

Scanlon v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. · filed 2021-03-01(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction may be exercised over state law claims where the court has original jurisdiction with respect to some claims and the state claims “are so related to claims in the action within . . . original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Relatedness exists where “the state and federal claims . . . derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Every claim in this case is fundamentally based on Crane’s alleged harassment of Scanlon and Entergy’s response to that alleged harassment. The state law claims are thus related to the federal claims and the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim; the parties’ relationship alone does not suffice.

Percival v. Poon · filed 2021-03-15(a)

If the Court has jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “that are so related to” the federal claim “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). State law claims are sufficiently related to the federal claim if they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and the party bringing the claims “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). ... These claims do not arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact as the ECPA claim and, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over them even if the ECPA claim survives Ms. Poon’s motion to dismiss.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim directly predicated on a federal claim because the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Morgan v. Bank of America, National Assocation · filed 2021-03-18(a)

Here, Plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claim is directly predicated upon the ADA violation, and therefore clearly “share[s] a common nucleus of operative fact.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Armenta v. Stater Bros. Markets · filed 2021-03-23(a)

Armenta’s claims share a common nucleus of operative facts related to his employment.

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

Fallon v. 18 Greenwich Avenue, LLC · filed 2021-03-23(a)

Gutierrez’s NYLL claims clearly derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact as the other Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims and as such satisfy Section 1367(a).

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

Williams v. United States of America · filed 2021-03-26(a)

Here, the court finds that Mr. Williams’s state-law claims of negligence and gross negligence based on medical services he received at UAB Highlands in July to August 2019 (doc. 8 at 32−33; doc. 15 at 33−34; doc. 18 at 21−22) and at Grandview Medical Center in January 2020 (doc. 8 at 42−43; doc. 15 at 47; doc. 18 at 24−25) do not arise out the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as his claim against the United States arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act for treatment he received in May 2011 and October 2017.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim; a loose factual connection is generally sufficient.

Frazier v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2021-03-26(a)

This requires that the state and federal claims share a “common nucleus of operative fact.” ... First, the Seventh Circuit has made clear that “a loose factual connection is generally sufficient.” ... Thus, the Court holds that the state and federal claims share a common nucleus of operative fact and retains supplement jurisdiction.

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

U.S. EEOC v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc. · filed 2021-04-01(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims is appropriate when the claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, such that the relationship between [the federal] claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional case.”

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

Mumpuku v. City of Plano · filed 2021-04-22(a)

Thus, the two incidences are unrelated for purposes of supplemental jurisdiction, and the federal and state law claims asserted by Plaintiff therefore do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact. As such, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against MCP is improper.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share the same nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim.

Talarico Bros. Building Corp. v. Union Carbide Corporation · filed 2021-04-26(a)

Plaintiffs’ state law negligence, nuisance, trespass, and ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activities claims share the same nucleus of operative facts as their federal RCRA claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, see Klein v. London Star Ltd., 26 F. Supp. 2d 689, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over an employer’s counterclaim when its only connection to an FLSA wage claim is the employment relationship.

Duran v. West Maple Dental Specialists, PC · filed 2021-04-27(a)

The only nexus between the FLSA claims and West Maple’s counterclaims is the employment relationship and the Court finds that is not sufficient for a compulsory counterclaim or supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction when federal and state claims rest on related facts and require overlapping evidence.

Vail v. Town of Cayuta · filed 2021-05-05(a)

The evidence that will necessarily be presented for each claim clearly overlap and rest on related facts. Indeed, the focus of each claim is the alleged signage removal by Beach. Therefore, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the trespass to chattel claim as it is appropriate under the circumstances.

Section 1367(a) reaches a state claim when it and a federal claim arise from a common nucleus of operative fact and would ordinarily be tried together.

Strojnik v. Ashford Scottsdale LP · filed 2021-05-19(a)

Here, Counts One and Six both arise from 15 Strojnik’s perusal of Ashford’s advertising materials and subsequent booking of a stay at 16 Ashford’s facility. They both stem, in part, from alleged misrepresentations and omissions 17 that Ashford made concerning the condition of its facility. Accordingly, they arise from 18 the same common nucleus of operative fact and a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to 19 try them together.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state law counterclaims that overlap with a federal wage claim only through the parties’ employment relationship.

Vasquez v. Dan Keen Services Incorporated · filed 2021-05-21(a)

Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaims. Notably, considerations of judicial economy and fairness do not dictate that these issues be resolved in one lawsuit.

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

Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. · filed 2021-05-27(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), even where the Court lacks original jurisdiction over a party’s claims, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims if they share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with those over which it did have jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that share only a common employment origin with the federal claims, without a common nucleus of operative fact.

Reyes v. ML Enterprises · filed 2021-06-02(a)

Sharing a common origin is not enough to confer supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the same operative facts support it and the federal claims.

DEWS v. LINK · filed 2021-06-02(a)

The facts necessary to establish the federal causes of action are the same needed to prove a breach of the settlement agreement. Therefore, we shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Harris v. Mack · filed 2021-06-07(a)

These claims involve the same Defendants and incidents as the excessive force claims that have passed initial review. Therefore, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the North Carolina assault and battery claims at this time.

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

Maria v. El Mambi Rest Corp. · filed 2021-06-08(a)

Here, the FLSA and NYLL claims “arise out of the same compensation policies and practices,” and thus derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. ... Since the Court has not dismissed any of Javier Maria’s federal claims, it concludes that supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims is proper.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; a common employment relationship alone does not suffice.

Grandberry v. SL Harbour Village, LLC · filed 2021-06-10(a)

But if the only relationship among claims is that they share a common origin, then the claims cannot be said to derive from a common nucleus of fact.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim; a connection to the same products does not suffice when the claims arise from separate transactions.

MBS Engineering Inc. v. Black Hemp Box LLC · filed 2021-06-16(a)

These claims arise out of completely different transactions and events than those giving rise to the trade-secret and breach-of-NDA claims, which center on the alleged disclosure of confidential information by McCarthy to the BHB defendants. ... Consequently, supplemental jurisdiction over claims five and six has not been established, and so these claims dismissed without prejudice.

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

Anthony v. Jeffreys · filed 2021-06-16(a)

This Court 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.

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

Rios v. Burrell · filed 2021-07-20(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action such as a § 1983 claim, 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. ... Because Plaintiff's allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction when a federal claim and an intervenor claim share a basic factual issue, even if other facts and legal questions differ.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · filed 2021-07-30(a)

Thus, both actions will turn, at least in part, on the determination of who owned the Contracts throughout the relevant time period. Given this basic overlap, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Gorenstein that there is subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires only a loose factual connection between the claim invoking federal jurisdiction and the supplemental claim.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division v. USA · filed 2021-08-02(a)

Therefore, it agrees with those cases which found that “§ 1367(a) requires only that the jurisdiction-invoking claim and the supplemental claim have some loose factual connection.” Id. (italics added).

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.

Shah v. Aerotek, Inc. · filed 2021-08-03(a)

Because Shah’s remaining state law claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative facts”—specifically, the series of events leading to the termination of his employment—as his federal law claim, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Shah’s remaining claims.

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

Center for Transitional Living L.L.C. v. Advanced Behavioral Health, Inc. · filed 2021-08-04

Finally, ABH argues only that if all of the other claims have been dismissed, then the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim in Count IV. Because the Court has not dismissed every federal cause of action and, at this stage of the litigation, the CUTPA claim appears to possess a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims, ABH’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Count IV.

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

Shenzhen Tange Lian E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Drone Whirl LLC · filed 2021-08-06(a)

Because the same activities form the basis of the parties’ competing claims, Drone Whirl’s counterclaims are derived from the same nucleus of operative fact as Shenzhen’s original claims. The facts alleged show Drone Whirl’s counterclaims to be part of the same case or controversy as the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a contract claim that shares only an employment and compensation context with federal claims but arises from a separate contract with different terms.

Scarcello v. Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc. · filed 2021-08-06(a)

The Court holds that it lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. The only common fact between this claim and the others is that they concern Plaintiff’s employment and his compensation. Other than this, their factual parameters derive from separate contracts with separate terms, and the signing bonus has no bearing on Plaintiff’s ERISA claims and vice versa.

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact between a supplemental claim and the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Ahmed v. UPS · filed 2021-08-06(a)

Finally, the complaint provides no reason for the Court to believe that Ahmed’s malpractice claim against Pasternack is sufficiently related to Ahmed’s employment discrimination claims against UPS, so as to warrant an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction: There is no perceivable “common nucleus of operative fact” between the Pasternack’s handling of Ahmed’s workers’ compensation matter and the day-to- day discrimination that Ahmed alleges he suffered at the hands of his UPS colleagues.

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

Reek v. Serier · filed 2021-08-13(a)

But when a federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s federal claims, that court also has “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims” in the action “that are so related to” the federal claims that they “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... As such, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Reek’s state-law claims.

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

McManus v. The Aleutian Region School District · filed 2021-08-17(a)

The Court concludes Plaintiffs have failed to allege a sufficient nexus or relationship between the alleged landlord tenant violations alleged against ARSD in Count 5 and the federal claims in Counts 1 and 2. Consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Court 5 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims arising from the same events as a contract claim within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction.

Cargo Logistics International, LLC v. Overseas Moving Specialists, Inc. · filed 2021-08-30(a)

Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims and state claims “stem from the same ‘common nucleus of operative fact.’” Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Loc. 272, 642 F.3d 321, 332 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims arise out of the same events — the cargo’s shipment and its subsequent abandonment in Ashdod — as Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.

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; a loose but operative factual connection can suffice.

OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. Wishbone Medical, Inc. · filed 2021-08-31(a)

A federal court with original jurisdiction can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy. ... The Court thus finds there is sufficient overlap to hold that the patent claims and breach of contract claim arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Ikedilo v. Statter · filed 2021-08-31(a)

The Court finds that all four common law claims are sufficiently related to Plaintiff’s two surviving federal claims to warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to related claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Strojnik v. AIH LLC · filed 2021-09-01(a)

Given this relation between these brand deceit claim and the ADA claim, the Court finds they involve a common nucleus of operative facts. Therefore, the claims fall within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, and will not be severed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact between state and federal claims; suing the same defendant alone does not satisfy that requirement.

Rush v. Davis-Stuart, Inc. · filed 2021-09-02(a)

The common nucleus of operative fact requirement is not satisfied merely because all Plaintiffs are asserting their claims against the same defendant.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims merely because both arise from an employment relationship when the claims lack evidentiary overlap.

Hill v. Builder Services Group Inc · filed 2021-09-03(a)

In the absence of evidentiary overlap between the claims, the mere fact that both claims are related to the employment relationship is not enough to establish supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against an additional defendant when it shares a common nucleus of operative facts with pending federal claims.

Schinella v. Soyer · filed 2021-09-16(a)

While the second claim is inadequately pled (as discussed below) it is nonetheless predicated upon a common nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims asserted against Salem Jr. and Dutchess County.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law conversion and unjust enrichment counterclaims when their operative facts do not overlap with an FLSA overtime claim.

Murie v. ServiceMaster Restoration by Recovery Pros LLC · filed 2021-09-20(a)

The facts required to prove these counterclaims do not arise from the common nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiff’s overtime claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims, even when another federal claim is dismissed.

Gatzke v. City of West Bend · filed 2021-09-21(a)

Those federal claims share a common nucleus of operative facts with the state-law claims and thus provide an independent basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the latter claims.

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

Zanghi v. Ritella · filed 2021-09-24(a)

As it appears that plaintiffs’ state law claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from separate incidents that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within original jurisdiction.

Bolden v. Nautilus Insurance Company · filed 2021-09-29(a)

The garnishment action and tort claims do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Vickers v. Godecki · filed 2021-09-30(a)

Here, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because all of his claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact between federal and state claims; discretionary considerations cannot supply jurisdiction when that connection is absent.

Fernandez v. Namdar Realty Group LLC · filed 2021-09-30(a)

These discretionary factors cannot create supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, there is no 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.

Greenport Gardens, LLC v. Village of Greenport · filed 2021-09-30(a)

For the reasons discussed with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Search claims, the trespass claims against Ward and Wingate may proceed, and the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction as to those claims since they are based on the same “nucleus of operative fact” as the Fourth Amendment claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact as a federal claim, even if the claims require different elements or additional proof.

Lawson v. BMW of North America LLC · filed 2021-10-14(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [such court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... But Plaintiff does not cite any authority for the proposition that claims must be composed of similar elements or rest on precisely the same factual showing in order to arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact.” ... Plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding”—indeed, he has done so by bringing all of the claims in this lawsuit.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law counterclaim that lacks a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.

D. M. Rottermond Inc. v. Shiklanian · filed 2021-10-15(a)

Due to this lack of relation between the relevant facts of the federal claim and state counterclaim, supplemental jurisdiction over the latter is lacking.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same operative facts as a federal claim when the claims would ordinarily be tried together.

Montgomery v. Gove · filed 2021-10-19(a)

Plaintiff alleges that Sedgwick incited his former employer to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and wrongfully terminate his employment. If these allegations can be proven, plaintiff’s aiding and abetting claim derives from a common nucleus of operative fact, and plaintiff would be expected to try his claims together. This Court has broad discretion to determine whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Carlsbad Technologies, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866-67, 173 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2009); Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 951-52 (6th Cir. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction and permit plaintiff to file his third amended complaint.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same factual allegations as federal claims that survive initial review.

Bullock El-Bey v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety · filed 2021-10-29(a)

The Plaintiff has minimally alleged that the SRG label has defamed his character, and this claim is related to the same factual allegations that have passed initial review on the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. The Court will therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s slander and libel claims at this time.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the surviving federal claims.

Wolf v. Tewalt · filed 2021-11-03(a)

Because these two types of claims do not share a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires supplemental claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within original jurisdiction; separate fee disputes do not qualify merely because the same person serves as an officer of both defendants.

Ramey & Schwaller, LLP v. EMED Technologies Corp. ONLY Bio-Health Frontiers, Inc. claims are reman · filed 2021-11-08(a)

Because there is no indication that Ramey’s claims against BHF and EMED arise from a common nucleus of operative facts, Ramey’s claims against BHF must be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when its facts substantially overlap with a federal claim; a usury claim can meet that test when alleged usury is the reason a borrower disputes reporting of the loan.

Warren v. Mariner Finance, LLC · filed 2021-11-10(a)

Here, there was such substantial overlap: the reason Warren disputed the listing of this loan on his credit report was because he was allegedly not liable for it, and the reason his complaint states he was not liable for it is because it was allegedly usurious. The district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the usury claim was therefore not an abuse of discretion.

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

Arbuckle v. Lt. Brown · filed 2021-11-16(a)

So long as the state and federal claims share a “common nucleus of operative fact,” I can exercise jurisdiction over the state claims. ... Arbuckle’s state claims arise from the exact same incident as his federal claims; I therefore have jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law tortious interference claim arising from a patent dispute when the claim and the patent claims share a common nucleus of operative fact concerning patent rights and infringement.

Fortinet, Inc. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. · filed 2021-11-29(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a federal district court which possesses original jurisdiction may hear other state law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... Like Additive Controls and Tools Aviation, the tortious interference claim in this case involves a statement that implicates Fortinet’s right to assert infringement, which raises questions of patent validity and infringement.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state sexual harassment claims when the remaining federal FLSA wage claims do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with them.

Klimovitsky v. JG Innovative Industries, Inc · filed 2021-12-01(a)

The Court finds that in light of its dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims, it lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. ... Plaintiff’s allegations of harassment are not connected to the FLSA allegations.

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

Moleon v. Alston · filed 2021-12-03(a)

The remaining federal and state law claims in this action originate from a common nucleus of fact. In these circumstances, the values of judicial economy, convenience to the parties, and fairness counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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, assessed when the action is filed.

Dankanich v. Pratt · filed 2021-12-09(a)

The LAL claim challenging that same denial “derive[s] from a common nucleus of operative fact” as the due process claims, so supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) was plainly proper at the outset of the case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state assault and battery claims involving the same incidents as surviving federal claims.

Ellis v. Masscegee · filed 2022-01-03(a)

The Plaintiff has plausibly stated assault and battery claims under North Carolina law against the Defendants, and these claims involve the same incidents as the excessive force and failure to intervene claims that have passed initial review. The Court will, accordingly, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims at this time. 2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress The Plaintiff appears to allege that the Defendants intentionally caused him emotional distress by forcefully administering unwanted medication. [Doc. 13 at 4, 13]. The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) which is intended to cause and does cause (3) severe emotional distress.” Dickens, 302 N.C. at 452, 276 S.E.2d at 335 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The severe emotional distress required for intentional infliction of emotional distress is “any emotional or mental disorder, such as for example, neurosis, psychosis, chronic depression, phobia, or any other type of severe or disabling emotional or mental condition which may be generally recognized and diagnosed by professionals trained to do so.” Piro v. McKeever, 245 N.C. App. 412, 416, 782 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2016), aff’d 369 N.C. 291, 794 S.E.2d 501 (citations omitted). Conduct is “extreme and outrageous” when it “exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by a decent society.” Shreve v. Duke Power Co., 85 N.C. App. 253, 257, 354 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1987) (citation and quotations omitted). The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Assuming arguendo that the Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, the Plaintiff has failed to allege that the Defendants intended to cause him severe emotional distress, or that he suffered a disabling emotional or mental condition as a result of their actions. The Court, accordingly, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress at this time.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that derives from the same operative facts as a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Flournoy v. Brookhart · filed 2022-01-11(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action such as a Section 1983 claim, 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). Flournoy’s allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims in Counts 1 and 4, so the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against nonfederal defendants that share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims against federal defendants.

Mahmoud v. Akima Global Sevices LLC · filed 2022-01-18

Additionally, even if Mahmoud could not bring his claims against Akima in federal court standing alone, those claims fall within the constitutional limits of this court’s jurisdiction because those claims and Mahmoud’s claims against the federal defendants—which are governed by the FTCA—derive from “a common nucleus of operative facts.” Almenares v. Wyman, 453 F.2d 1075, 1083–84 (2d Cir. 1971) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). And for that same reason, those claims fall within this court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Newbary v. Enterprise RAC Company of Montana/Wyoming, LLC · filed 2022-01-20(a)

Once federal question jurisdiction is established over some claims in an action, the Court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction over the entire action “whenever the federal-law claims and 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 try them all in one judicial proceeding.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349 (1988) (quoting Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Plaintiffs’ WDFEA claims likewise satisfy this test because they arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact—i.e., Defendants’ termination of Plaintiffs’ employment—alleged in the FAC as their federal claims.

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

Roldan v. Bland Landscaping Company, Inc. · filed 2022-02-01(a)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s NCWHA and FLSA claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact”; that is, Defendant’s wage payment policies and practices with respect to its foremen. It would be a waste of resources for both the courts and the Parties to require separate Federal and State adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, the Court will not accept Defendant’s request to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NCWHA claims.

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.

Schorr v. American Arbitration Association · filed 2022-02-01(a)

To the extent that Schorr brings state-law claims against the AAA-ICDR that are not ones as to which there is subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 203 (e.g., her statutory claims for false advertising), the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. That is because all of Schorr’s claims against the AAA-ICDR arise from the common nucleus of operative fact: the arbitrator’s decisions not to invoke the Inquest Clause and to close the case, terminating the arbitration without affording Schorr any relief or fee recompense.

Section 1367(a) requires more than shared parties to support supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim.

Rice v. Island Home and Properties, LLC · filed 2022-02-07(a)

Although both the amended complaint and counterclaim involve the same parties, this alone is insufficient to establish supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Conaway v. Close · filed 2022-02-08(a)

This Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Close, and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) does not apply.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against different defendants when those claims and a federal claim share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Lindenbaum v. Northwell Health, Inc. · filed 2022-02-23(a)

For purposes of Section 1367(a), claims “form part of the same case or controversy” if they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, the “common nucleus of operative fact” alleged in the Proposed Amended Complaint is Defendants’ substandard provision of care to Lindenbaum, first at Pilgrim’s SOCR, then at Northwell, and then again at Northwell. Thus, the claims alleged against the Northwell Defendants form part of the same case or controversy as those alleged against Defendant O’Keefe.

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 attach.

Folta v. Norfork Brewing Company · filed 2022-02-25(a)

“[D]istrict 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). To be considered “part of the same case or controversy,” the claims and counterclaims must all “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” ... For this and the other reasons previously stated, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Counterclaim.

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

Grae-El v. City of Seattle · filed 2022-02-28(a)

Because Plaintiffs’ state law based claims share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with their constitutional claims, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and removal to this court was proper.

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

Scutt v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. · filed 2022-03-15(a)

Accordingly, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the medical malpractice and defamation claims under § 1367, and they must be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against an additional party when those claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Nor v. Alrashid · filed 2022-03-17(a)

The claims against Dr. Alrashid and the claims against GI Partners and Northshore unquestionably derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them accordingly.* Dr. Alrashid’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

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.

HUDNALL v. STATE OF TEXAS · filed 2022-03-21(a)

Without addressing the merits or plausibility of Plaintiff’s state law claims at this stage of litigation, the Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because they arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the federal question claims.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state disability discrimination claims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with federal wage and overtime claims; dismissal of those state claims is required.

Nikonov v. Flirt Ny Inc. · filed 2022-03-24(a)

Such claims do not arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact as his wage-and-hour claims. ... In these circumstances, since supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims does not exist, dismissal of the state law claims is required and not discretionary.

Section 1367(a) requires federal and state claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; events occurring on the same day do not establish that connection when the claims’ facts do not substantially overlap.

Owens v. Captain Fitzgerald · filed 2022-03-31(a)

Liberally construing plaintiff’s pro se submissions, they fall short of demonstrating that the defamation claim and the claim based on the seizure of the motorcycle share a common nucleus of operative fact. The facts underlying the claim for wrongful seizure of the motorcycle do not substantially overlap with the facts underlying the claim for defamation. That the motorcycle was seized by defendant the same day he allegedly defamed plaintiff is insufficient.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims when the employment relationship is their only factual connection to federal wage claims.

Johnson v. Corporate Express, Inc. · filed 2022-03-31(a)

Here, beyond Plaintiff’s employment relationship, Defendants have not identified any factual overlap between their counterclaims and Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Bafford v. Northrop Grumman Corporation · filed 2022-04-04(a)

Based on these observations, the Court concludes that the ERISA claim, on one hand, and the state-law claims, on the other hand, do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact. Accordingly, the Court is not permitted to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the claims invoking original jurisdiction, including counterclaims involving overlapping questions about the terms of employment.

Milford Real Estate Group, LLC v. Colburn · filed 2022-04-05(a)

The Court disagrees that the claims and counterclaims are so neatly delineated as to not constitute “the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), nor stem from a “common nucleus of operative fact,” ABF Freight Sys., for purposes of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Alpine 4 Holdings Incorporated v. Finn Management GP LLC · filed 2022-04-21(a)

Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are based on the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claim, so the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims; the plaintiff must establish that connection for claims involving different markets, parties, contracts, and conduct.

Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company · filed 2022-04-26(a)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims only if they are part of the same “case or controversy” as the federal claims. ... The two sets of claims appear to concern different markets, different parties, different contracts, and a different course of conduct.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share no discernable factual overlap with the remaining federal claims.

Sacks v. University of Minnesota · filed 2022-04-26(a)

The required common nucleus is absent from the Amended Complaint in one respect: Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against USA Hockey and Hockey Illinois share no discernable factual overlap with Plaintiffs’ remaining federal claims (the § 1983 claim against Adrahtas individually and the Title IX claim against the University insofar as the claim is asserted by Plaintiffs Sacks, Jensen, Pietrangelo, Doe, and Walker).

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims to collect an underlying debt when FDCPA and state consumer protection claims about collection conduct do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with those counterclaims.

Krezic v. Advanced Endodontics of Buffalo, PC · filed 2022-05-02(a)

Plaintiff's FDCPA and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 claims and Defendants’ counterclaims for repayment of the debt do not derive 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 federal claims, including claims against a different defendant.

Milner-Koonce v. Albany City School District · filed 2022-05-12(a)

It appears that the claims against Honeywell arise under the same “nucleus of operative fact” as the alleged state law violations relate to plaintiffs EEOC proceeding which was initiated because of the School District's and its employees’ actions, and as part of Honeywell's representation of the School District.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state open-records claim when the requested records concern the alleged misconduct underlying a related federal claim.

Vander Pas v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System · filed 2022-05-19(a)

Finally, the Court is persuaded that Vander Pas’s Wis. Stat. § 19.35 claim “derives from a common nucleus of operative fact” such that it “form[s] part of the same case or controversy” as Vander Pas’s Title IX claim. ... The Court determines that it has supplemental jurisdiction over Vander Pas’s Wis. Stat. § 19.35 claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and will grant Vander Pas’s motion to amend her Complaint.

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

Azadian v. Reed · filed 2022-05-26(a)

Here, contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, Plaintiff’s state-law causes of actions and his Section 1983 claim both “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would be ordinarily expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.”

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

Champlin v. Music Sales Corporation · filed 2022-05-31(a)

The Court clearly has supplemental jurisdiction over Champlin’s state conversion claims. ... The federal and state claims in this action originate from a common nucleus of fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a nonfederal successor liability claim that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal ERISA alter ego claim.

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. DT Leasing, LLC · filed 2022-06-15(a)

Here, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides for subject matter jurisdiction over non- federal claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.” Sanchez & Daniels v. Koresko, 503 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2007).

Section 1367(a) requires supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, absent an exception under subsection (c).

Ritke v. Schuessler · filed 2022-06-21(a)

The Court is, absent an exception, required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law assault and battery claims arising from the same incidents as surviving federal excessive-force and sexual-contact claims.

Abdullah-Malik v. Cathy · filed 2022-06-22(a)

The Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force and sexual act claims have passed initial review against Defendants Martin, Hodgens, Grooms, Pursor, and Kiker, and the Plaintiff appears to assert assault and battery claims against them for the same incidents. The allegations plausibly state assault and battery claims under North Carolina law and the Court will, therefore, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims at this time.

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

Crump v. Mecklenburg County Detention Center Officers · filed 2022-06-22(a)

Federal district courts may entertain claims not otherwise within their adjudicatory authority when those claims “are so related to claims ... within [federal-court competence] that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The Plaintiff’s excessive force claims have passed initial review and the North Carolina assault and battery claims are likewise plausible. The Court will, therefore, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims at this time.

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

Asbell v. West · filed 2022-06-23(a)

Because the allegations in this case involve a “common nucleus of operative fact,” id., the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim, even when different contracts govern the parties’ relationships.

Manderson v. Fairview Health Services · filed 2022-07-05(a)

In sum, because the Complaint facially alleges that there is a common nucleus of operative fact between the federal and state claims, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Vernon Hill, II v. Cohen · filed 2022-07-06(a)

And because the state law claim to appoint a custodian shares “a common nucleus of operative fact” with the federal claims, it is amenable to supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the remaining federal claims.

Murdock v. American Maritime Officers Union National Executive Board · filed 2022-07-12(a)

As Count 3 involves factual allegations that are no longer at issue in the remaining counts, there is no supplemental jurisdiction over Count 3.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

BRM Trades, LLC v. All-Ways Forwarding Int'l Inc. · filed 2022-07-15(a)

Because BRM’s remaining claims—the fraud claim against All-Ways, as well as the breach-of-contract and fraud claims against DRE—all arise from the “same common nucleus of operative facts” as BRM’s breach-of-contract claim against All-Ways, which itself arises out of the Bill of Lading, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims as well.

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

Thomason v. Dallison · filed 2022-07-21(a)

When 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. Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008). As Plaintiff's allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a separate defendant when those claims arise from independent conduct and lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.

SOLOMON v. PARENTE · filed 2022-07-26(a)

Thus, the actions of Solomon and Parente do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. ... Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised over the state law claims against Solomon.

Section 1367 requires a common nucleus of operative fact between federal and state claims for supplemental jurisdiction and permits a court to decline jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel issue of state law.

Littlewood v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp · filed 2022-08-03(a), (c)(1)

Because there is no common nucleus of operative fact between Ms. Littlewood’s Equal Pay Act claim and her CPHEW claim, and because the CPHEW claim raises a novel issue of state law, the Court declines in its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the CPHEW claim and dismisses it without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a contract nonpayment claim when the related federal RICO claims arise from distinct bribery allegations and the claims can be tried separately.

Government App Solutions, Inc. v. City of New Haven · filed 2022-08-10(a)

Ultimately, however, the operative facts that give rise to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is New Haven’s alleged failure to pay the amount due under the contract — not any of the alleged RICO violations. Therefore, this claim can be tried separately from the RICO claims.

Section 1367(a) reaches state claims arising from the same incident as a surviving federal claim, but not claims arising from a separate incident years earlier without a common nucleus of operative fact.

Li v. Peck · filed 2022-08-11(a)

Accordingly, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Li’s state law claims arising from the 2016 incident, and these claims will be dismissed. ... The Court therefore has jurisdiction under § 1367(a) over Ms. Li’s state law claims relating to the 2020 incident, and will address each of her claims in turn.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim and form one constitutional case.

County of Mono v. Liberty Utilities Calpeco Electric, LLC · filed 2022-08-16(a)

Further, the Court cannot say based on the current record that supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims is improper, as all Plaintiffs’ claims appear to stem from “a common nucleus of operative fact,” such that “the relationship between [the federal] claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional ‘case.’” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); see also 28 U.S.C. § 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.

Bioconvergence LLC D/B/A Singota Solutions v. Singh · filed 2022-08-22(a)

Singh’s alleged violations of various federal and state trade secrets laws, as well as the common law tort claims against him, all arise from “a common nucleus of operative fact”—Singh’s alleged efforts to help his wife steal and conceal trade secrets. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). They therefore satisfy the requirements of § 1367(a).

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

Kocak v. Nick & Sams Steak & Fish House LTD · filed 2022-08-23(a)

The Court finds that there is a common nucleus of operative fact between Kocak’s discrimination claims against Nick & Sam’s and her state law tort claims against Johnson.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction when federal and state claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, even if the claims differ in form and substance and involve different defendants.

OJO v. MILROSE 179 HARRISON, LLC · filed 2022-08-25(a)

Though the federal and state claims clearly differ in both form and substance, they all arise from the dispute over Milrose’s maintenance of the Ojos’ apartment unit, their employment of Ehrlich to collect rent from the Ojos, and the resulting summary dispossess action, as I noted in my prior opinion. ... I find, however, that the basis for my exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, expressed in the prior opinion, remains proper.

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

Maiani v. Citizens Financial Group Inc. · filed 2022-09-01(a)

The Complaint’s claims under North Carolina iw are removable under this court’s supplemental jurisdiction because the state-law and federal-law claims are derived from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction when federal and state claims have different operative facts and distinct injuries despite a tangential connection.

Hernandez v. Roche, Jr. · filed 2022-09-02(a)

While tangentially connected, Plaintiff’s two claims arise from different operative facts. The alleged injuries are also distinct. Thus, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s business disparagement 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.

Bronx Conservatory of Music, Inc. v. Bronx School for Music, Inc. · filed 2022-09-07(a)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ state law sexual harassment claims because, like their claims under the NYLL, they do not derive from a “nucleus of operative fact common to the jurisdiction-conferring claim[s]” based on violations of federal laws concerning trade secrets and copyright infringement.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against one defendant when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims against other defendants.

Lyons v. Newton · filed 2022-09-08(a)

The Court retains its supplemental jurisdiction over Lyons’s claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress against Palmer under section 1367(a) because this state law claim arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims against Newton and the City.

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

Morin v. Fordham University · filed 2022-09-28(a)

Here, Defendants Robinson and Forgey’s alleged conducts are the nucleus of operative fact from which Plaintiff’s federal claims derive, and thus satisfy Section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state tort claims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the claims within original jurisdiction.

Doe v. United States of America · filed 2022-10-25(a)

Here, there is no supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s tort claims because they do not derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact” with her federal claims. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims and would normally be tried together.

Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc. · filed 2022-10-25(a)

Synopsys’ allegations are sufficient to establish that the proposed state law claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts such that Synopsys’ state and federal claims would normally be tried together.

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.

Morales v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2022-10-31(a)

This Court will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claim for violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”). Plaintiffs’ TDCA claim concerns the same parties, the same property, the same mortgage, and the same conduct as their claim for breach of contract.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim within its original jurisdiction.

VAN ECK v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2022-11-09(a)

This Court, then, has original jurisdiction over the van Ecks’ racketeering claim because it arises under federal law and supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims because they all arise under the same nucleus of operative facts.

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

Von Derhaar v. Stalbert · filed 2022-11-14(a)

Since this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims arising under the Constitution and federal law, this Court has the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims because they derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact” with plaintiff’s federal and constitutional claims.

A state-law barratry counterclaim based on the litigation itself does not share the common nucleus of operative fact required for supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a).

Baker v. Davidson · filed 2022-11-17(a)

In the present action, entertaining the barratry claim would require the court to inquire into matters outside the nucleus of operative fact, namely Baker’s history of court filings.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party contractual indemnity claim that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with the underlying claims.

ZAKRIE v. LISEC AMERICA, INC. · filed 2022-11-18(a)

In this case, LiSec’s third-party contractual indemnity claim against UPG involves a common nucleus of operative facts with Zakrie’s underlying claims. These claims all arise out of Zakrie’s alleged injury by the glass processing machine and involve the question of who is liable to pay for any damages. Accordingly, the Court can properly exercise jurisdiction over LiSec’s third-party claim.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims that share only an employment relationship with federal claims and lack a common nucleus of operative facts.

Aponte v. Mason County Fire Protection District No. 16 · filed 2022-11-21(a)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ wrongful discharge claims because they do not share a common nucleus of operative facts with their FLSA claims.

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

McIlwain v. Allen P. Dodd, III · filed 2022-11-22(a)

But, regardless of McIlwain’s state citizenship, this court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because McIlwain’s state law claims and federal claim originate from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Board of Trustees of the IUOE Local 4 Pension Fund v. Alongi · filed 2022-12-07(a)

Those federal and state claims are factually and legally intertwined and share a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Balentine v. Annucci · filed 2022-12-20(a)

Plaintiff’s state law claims arise from his federal claims against Defendants, thus establishing a common nucleus of operating fact.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state claims whose factual basis is insufficiently related to the surviving federal claim.

Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor PLLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 2022-12-29(a)

Now that the record provides a clearer picture of how A4 intends to litigate its state law claims, the Court concludes that these claims are not sufficiently related to the factual basis of the Blues Conspiracy.

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

Poticny v. Movers and Packers Relocation Specialists LLC · filed 2022-12-30(a)

This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, as they arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact: Defendant’s actions in loading Plaintiff’s property onto their moving truck, failing to observe the Binding Estimate or properly rescind the estimate, and failing to return Plaintiff’s property.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim with no connection to the claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Braun v. Heights Advisors LLC · filed 2024-02-15(a)

Nothing in the complaint or in plaintiff’s affidavit suggests any connection between her breach of contract claim and her minimum wage claim; they therefore do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Accordingly, her breach of contract claim is dismissed without prejudice to recommencement in state court.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a state-law claim that rests on different facts from the surviving federal claim.

Kabes v. School District of River Falls · filed 2005-09-26(a)

Finally, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. ... This test is met if the state and federal claims are part of one constitutional “case”; that is, if they derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact” and would ordinarily be tried together. ... Her state law claim concerns the nature of her nonrenewal hearing and rests on a different set of facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim, but an employment relationship alone does not connect unrelated workplace torts to an overtime claim.

Saenz v. AUSTIN ROOFER'S SUPPLY, LLC · filed 2009-10-06(a)

As in these cases, the employment relationship provides the only nexus between Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims and Arredondo’s tort claims in the instant action. The two claims do not share common facts, and a different body of evidence will be required to prove each one. Thus the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction as to the tort claims of assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision and is constrained to remand those claims to state court under § 1447(c). ... To support the contract and FLSA claims, the parties will rely on substantially the same facts, namely hours worked, wages owed based on hours worked and commissions, and wages actually paid, and there will be substantial overlap in the witnesses and evidence produced for each claim. Thus, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim under § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact between federal and state claims; claims from separate repossessions by unrelated defendants over a year apart do not satisfy that requirement merely because they involve the same car and credit agreement.

Cochran v. Marlton Auto Credit · filed 2013-03-12(a)

In sum, there is no common nucleus of operative fact uniting the federal claim against A & E with the state claims against Stealth so as to create a single case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution. If no supplemental jurisdiction existed in Whisman under § 1367(a), surely none can exist here.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to claims arising from facts unrelated to those underlying the claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Venable v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. · filed 2013-12-30(a)

The district court therefore could not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the claims the Venables bring against LWCC.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law records request claim arising months after an unrelated federal claim when the claims lack a common nucleus of operative facts.

Holton v. Conrad · filed 2014-06-04(a)

Thus, Holton’s only federal claim, his § 1983 claim, and his state law claim concerning his records requests do not “derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.”

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over permissive counterclaims arising from separate settlement negotiations that share no common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims.

O'Donnell v. Angels at Home Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2018-01-08(a)

This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Defendants’ counterclaims under § 1367(a) because they do not form part of the same case or controversy as Relator’s FCA claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim only when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within original jurisdiction; setoff and recoupment claims based on different facts from a bankruptcy discharge claim do not qualify.

In re: Kristine L. Adams · filed 2018-08-07(a)

Under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the setoff and recoupment claims must be "so related" to the scope of the discharge injunction inquiry (core jurisdictional issue) such that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. ... Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction did not empower the bankruptcy court to decide the setoff and recoupment claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims whose underlying facts are unrelated to those of the federal claim and occurred nearly a decade later.

Pirri v. Cheek · filed 2019-08-20(a)

Here, the facts underlying the defamation claims and the inventorship claims rely on unrelated facts that occurred nearly a decade apart. ... The Court therefore holds that it lacks supplemental jurisdiction to hear Pirri’s proposed claims of defamation and defamation per se.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction merely because claims concern the same automobile when the contract and constitutional claims arise from wholly unrelated facts.

Barnes v. City of Cleveland · filed 2020-02-20(a)

Here, the contract claim and the constitutional claims are not sufficiently related for ... the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim. The only commonality between the claims is the disputed automobile. But whether Defendant Barnes breached his contract with Credit Acceptance Corporation and whether the City of Cleveland violated Barnes’s constitutional rights arise out of wholly unrelated facts.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a resignation-triggered tuition-reimbursement counterclaim when the federal ADA claim concerns unrelated mandatory counseling and the claims share no common nucleus of operative facts.

Ruggieri v. City of Hoover, The · filed 2020-03-12(a)

Because the two claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the City’s counterclaim, and that claim must be dismissed without prejudice to the City’s right to refile the action in the appropriate forum.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to an assault and battery claim arising from a domestic fight merely because the fight precipitated the police encounter underlying a federal unreasonable-seizure claim, where the claims share no common nucleus of operative fact.

Petaway v. New Haven · filed 2020-04-24(a)

Petaway’s assault and battery claim against his wife regards a fight between them that precipitated the NHPD’s arrival on Petaway’s porch. But it has nothing to do with how the NHPD officers acted towards Petaway or what policies the NHPD had. In other words, there is no common nucleus of operative fact shared between Petaway’s assault and battery claim against his wife and Petaway’s constitutional claim for an unreasonable seizure against the NHPD and its officers.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims whose operative facts are unrelated to the federal claim.

Henderson v. Town of Greenwood · filed 2020-10-08(a)

As the Court previously explained, it cannot properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims relating to how FDSI’s actions on its property may or not be disrupting Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land because the facts underlying that dispute are unrelated to the zoning dispute which provides the Court with original jurisdiction in this matter.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims that are factually distinct from the federal claim and share no common nucleus of operative fact with it.

Bowie v. Automax Used Cars LLC · filed 2021-11-01(a)

The Court finds that these state law claims and Plaintiff’s § 1981 claim are factually distinct and involve so little evidentiary overlap that there is no common nucleus of operative fact between them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a remaining federal claim, but not over claims based on different facts.

Johnson v. Westville Correctional Facility · filed 2022-02-18(a)

The remaining state law claims against the other defendants do not derive from the same facts underpinning the excessive force claim against Officer Brown, so the court dismisses them for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim based on facts unrelated in time and substance to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

ADYB Engineered For Life, Inc. v. Edan Administration Services (Ireland) LTD. · filed 2022-03-28(a)

As the Court found with respect to EDAN and PAAS’s proposed fraudulent conveyance claim, the Court would lack supplement jurisdiction over E. Cohen’s proposed conversion claim because the claim “rests on facts completely unrelated in time and in substance to those underlying ADYB’s claims—i.e., the claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction.” (Mem. Op. at 51); see, e.g., Schwartz v. Sensei, LLC, 17-CV-04124 (SN), 2020 WL 5817010, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020) (holding that court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims that were distinct in time and substance from federal claims).

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a state tort claim pleaded against unnamed inmates with only a conclusory nexus to the federal defendants.

Williams v. Caudillo · filed 2022-11-14(a)

But he asks the Court to take supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, as pointed out by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff pleads this claim against other, unnamed inmates with only a conclusory nexus to any existing defendant in this case. The Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law conversion claim based on the same facts as a federal copyright infringement claim because the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Gilles v. The People of the State of California · filed 2019-11-01(a)

Plaintiff’s 21 conversion claim is based on the same facts as Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim; 22 the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts and allegations of wrongful conduct as a sufficiently pleaded federal claim.

AUSTAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. AUSTARPHARMA LLC · filed 2019-11-27(a)

Here, plaintiff's federal and state law claims arise from the same facts and the same allegations of wrongful conduct by Dr. Liu. | will therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Austar International’s state law claims (Counts 1 to 3 and 5 to 7) under § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as surviving federal claims.

5 Borough Pawn, LLC v. City of New York · filed 2009-06-22(a)

This Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs’ state law claims implicate similar issues as their federal claims, and arise out of the same set of facts. As discussed above, the Court is not dismissing all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. So, at this point in the lawsuit, there is no reason to send plaintiffs’ state law claims to state court, because they present similarly unresolved issues.

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

Patterson v. Xerox Corporation · filed 2010-08-02(a)

Here, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the State HRL claims is appropriate since Plaintiffs Title VII claims and the HRL claims are “so related” within the meaning of Section 1367(a) since both the federal and state claims arise out of the same facts and circumstances.

Section 1367(a) requires the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a federal claim within its original jurisdiction.

Busby v. Capital One, N.A. · filed 2011-01-06(a)

Given the undisputed fact that the RICO claims arise out of the same facts underlying the plaintiffs D.C. law claims, the court is required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claims based on D.C. law.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same facts and alleged conduct as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2011-06-15(a)

The Court sees no reason for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against Boser. As set out in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Title VII claim against CMH, his slander per se claims against Boser, and NYHRL claim against both all stem from the same facts and alleged conduct of the Defendants. Thus, the claims should be tried all in one judicial proceeding.

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

Rollins v. Dignity Health · filed 2018-09-06(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because these claims arise from the same set of facts as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim arising from the same facts as the federal claims.

Smith v. Baldwin · filed 2020-02-07(a)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim because it arises from the same facts as Plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

THEODORE v. NEWARK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMMUNITY WELLNESS · filed 2020-03-25(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's LAD claims, which are based on the exact same facts as Plaintiff's remaining federal claims.