28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

(PC) Bucaojit v. Solano County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-04-22(a)

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

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

(PC) Casto v. Newsom · filed 2020-04-22(a)

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

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

(PC) Harvey v. Aguilera · filed 2020-04-22(a)

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

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

(PC) Billy Lee Eakins v. Diaz · filed 2020-04-23(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental state-law allegations that form the same case or controversy as the federal allegations.

(PC) Millare v. Murphy · filed 2020-04-23(a)

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

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

(PC) Vlasich v. Bobbala · filed 2020-04-24(a)

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

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

(PC) Rodriguez v. Clemmons · filed 2020-04-24(a)

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

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

(PC) Easley v. Strain/Hall · filed 2020-04-28(a)

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

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

(PC) Dixon v. Navarro · filed 2020-04-28(a)

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

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law negligence claim based on the same facts as a federal claim.

Jimenez v. Warden Christensen · filed 2020-04-30(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when they are “so related” to the federal claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... The Court will permit Plaintiff to proceed against Sergeant Miller under a state law negligence theory on the same facts.

Section 1367 permits a district court to hear a state law negligence claim that is part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Garcia v. Idaho State Correction Center · filed 2020-05-01(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when they are “so related” to the federal claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... The Court will permit Plaintiff to proceed against Adam Miller under a state law negligence theory, but Plaintiff must add a separate cause of action in his amended complaint to clarify the facts supporting this cause of action, which is different from an Eighth Amendment civil rights claim.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same facts and circumstances as the federal claims.

Harrell v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2020-05-07(a)

The district court also had supplemental jurisdiction over the Harrells’ remaining state-law claims because they arose out of the same set of facts and circumstances as their federal claims—the fraudulent actions by the defendants in refinancing their loan.

Section 1367(a) requires a state-law claim to form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; a former attorney’s allegedly negligent EEOC representation does not meet that requirement merely because both matters arose from the plaintiff’s termination.

Guerra v. City of Pleasanton · filed 2020-05-12(a)

This Court only has supplemental jurisdiction over claims “that are so related to claims in the action” over which the Court has original jurisdiction “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

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

Schoonover v. Clay County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-05-21(a)

The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims ... under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claims “form part of the same case or controversy” as the federal-law claims addressed above.

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

Gutierrez v. City of Long Beach · filed 2020-05-27(a)

But the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because they arise out of the same case or controversy as his Eighth Amendment claim.

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

Insco v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2020-05-28(a)

This Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over this state tort claim, as it forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim.

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

BioTE Medical, LLC v. Jacobsen · filed 2020-06-01(a)

Similarly, the Court is satisfied that Evexias/Farmakeio Defendants’ counterclaim against BioTE for invasion of privacy shares a common nucleus of operative fact with BioTE’s initial Lanham Act and RICO claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same case and controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Coastal Private Protection Security, Inc. · filed 2020-07-10(a)

Because the plaintiff’s state law claim arises out of the same case and controversy, the court has supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Compoli v. Digital Concrete Imaging, Inc. · filed 2020-07-13(a)

Also, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the breach of contract claim forms “part of the same case or controversy” as the FLSA claims. Thus, supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim exists.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to a claim against a new defendant when it has a sufficient factual connection to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Wubben v. Yankton County, South Dakota · filed 2020-07-15(a)

Thus, the proposed claim for defamation against Swensen is related to the claims alleged in the initial complaint and supplemental jurisdiction extends to the amendment.

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

Bradley, Brandon v. Weber, Leigha · filed 2020-07-20(a)

Bradley’s state-law negligence claim “form[s] part of the same case or controversy” as her constitutional claims, so I can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over claims below the amount in controversy threshold when they are part of the same controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Chess v. CF Arcis IX LLC · filed 2020-07-22(a)

The Court will be able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other claims in the complaint even if those are below the $75,000 threshold because they are part of the same controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim, even if state venue rules would prevent trying them together in state court.

Ruloph v. LAMMICO · filed 2020-07-24(a)

Although a claimant who brings suit in Arkansas state court may not be able to try these claims in one proceeding due to procedural statutes enacted to benefit defendants in medical malpractice claims, a claimant who could bring any of these claims in an original action in federal court would certainly expect to try all of them together. Therefore, the claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact and the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Maximum Fidelity Surgical Simulations, LLC v. Baker · filed 2020-08-05(a)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal and state claims form part of the same case or controversy because they arise from the same operative facts, namely Defendant’s employment with Plaintiff and his alleged conduct during the term of his MFSS employment and after his termination.

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

Barile v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC · filed 2020-08-05(a)

In this case, the New Mexico Lemon Law claim and the MMWA claims arise out of the same factual allegation, i.e., Defendant’s dealer sold Plaintiffs a defective Range Rover. Hence, a more than loose factual connection exists between the New Mexico Lemon Law claim and the MMWA claims. Accordingly, the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. As such, the claims are all part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same case or controversy as a remaining federal claim, even when the state-law defendant faces no federal claim.

Conner, Adonnis v. Bouzek · filed 2020-08-07(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), I can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim that is “so related to the claim[] in the action within [my] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” This is true even though Bouzek is not himself the subject of any federal claims. ... The claims against Bouzek and Jeanpierre arguably meet these standards, and the state defendants make no argument that they don’t. So I will retain jurisdiction over Conner’s state-law claim, and the case will proceed against Bouzek and Jeanpierre.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against one defendant when federal claims against another defendant remain and the claims are part of the same controversy.

FMHUB, LLC v. MUNIPLATFORM, LLC · filed 2020-08-10(a)

Because Plaintiff’s claims against Touhey and Mergel are part of the same controversy, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Touhey.

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

(PC) Leader v. County of Sacramento · filed 2020-08-18(a)

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

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to derive from a common nucleus of operative fact for supplemental jurisdiction.

Ghazal v. Whinery · filed 2020-08-25(a)

Based on the allegations of the Amended Complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff’s Federal Housing Act claim against Whinery and her breach of contract claims against the Miles Defendants do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, but instead, arise from two distinct factual circumstances.

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

Kandavilli v. Gadiyaram · filed 2020-08-26(a)

Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 over the lease claims, because they are not part of the same Article III case and controversy as the claims giving rise to the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) allows a plaintiff to include state-law allegations that form the same case or controversy as federal allegations.

(PC) Dixon v. Navarro · filed 2020-08-27(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over other claims and parties when those claims share the same central question as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Biro v. Smith · filed 2020-09-01(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the other parties and claims in this case because they all raise the same question: whether Green Lake Road is public or private.

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.

Allen v. Geo Group, The · filed 2020-09-01(a)

In this case, all of Plaintiff’s claims stem from the same common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Goodson v. Poe · filed 2020-09-09(a)

It appears to the Court that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because they are “so related to [the § 1983 and TVPA claims] that they form part of the same case or controversy.” ... Because both federal claims survive dismissal, this Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the relevant state law claims.

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

Allen v. Geo Group, The · filed 2020-09-11(a)

In this case, all of Plaintiff’s claims stem from the same common nucleus of operative fact. His injuries were caused by the same incident, and his state and federal claims both derive from the alleged denial and delay in medical care.

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

Neptune Shipmanagement Services (Pte.), Ltd. v. Dahiya · filed 2020-09-16(a)

Equally clear is the existence of federal jurisdiction over the Vessel Interests’ remaining claims (Counts II through IV). With certain exceptions that do not apply here, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides that in any civil action in which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form a part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such is the case here: 9 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 207 supply the Court with original jurisdiction over Count I, and Counts II through IV relate to the same case or controversy as Count I.

Section 1367(a) permits state-law allegations in an amended federal complaint when they form the same case or controversy as the federal allegations.

(PC) John v. Hughes · filed 2020-09-18(a)

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

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

Thompson v. Rouses Enterprises, LLC · filed 2020-09-22(a)

Additionally, because this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADA claim, it can, and chooses to, exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over any state law claims asserted in the Petition because they arise out of the same case or controversy as the ADA claim.

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

BAKER v. LINCOLN PARK BANCORP · filed 2020-09-22(a)

As the state claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claim, the Court may exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1367.

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

Warren v. Mariner Finance, LLC · filed 2020-09-25(a)

Thus, this Court finds that the state law claims are “so related to [the FCRA claim] that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PC) Garcia v. Jones · filed 2020-09-28(a)

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

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

(PC) Turner v. Baughman · filed 2020-09-28(a)

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

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

(PC) Florence v. Beards · filed 2020-09-28(a)

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

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

(PC) Smith v. Singh · filed 2020-09-28(a)

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

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

(PC) Hernandez v. Weiss · filed 2020-09-28(a)

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

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

(PC) Stuckey v. State of California · filed 2020-09-29(a)

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

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

(PC) Williams v. Sacramento County · filed 2020-09-29(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits state-law allegations alongside federal claims when they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Hill v. McGeffen · filed 2020-09-29(a)

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

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

Williams v. Rashed · filed 2020-09-30(a)

This claim, however, does not form part of the same case or controversy as Mr. Williams’ alleged Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Foster.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against a defendant whose federal claims have been dismissed when that claim forms part of the same case or controversy as remaining claims against another defendant.

MACOLINO v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MORELAND · filed 2020-09-30(a)

Although all federal claims have been dismissed against Defendant Mullen, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Mullen because that claim is so related to the remaining claims against Defendant Officer McCoy that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

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

Salu v. Miranda · filed 2020-10-08(a)

Section 1367(a) of Title 28 grants federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as the asserted federal claims. ... Thus, the district court did not err by exercising supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing these claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law assault and battery claim arising from the same conduct as a Title VII claim because the claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Prusaczyk v. Hamilton County Coal LLC · filed 2020-10-08(a)

Here, Prusaczyk’s assault and battery claim against Woodring is so related to the Title VII claim that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

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

Doe v. University of Delaware · filed 2020-10-14(a)

UD has now withdrawn its motion to dismiss the federal due process claim (Count II), and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state medical-care claims arising after an arrest when the remaining federal claims concern earlier conduct during the arrest.

Baca v. Clovis Police Department · filed 2020-10-20(a)

Accordingly, the state law claims are not “so related to [the remaining federal claim] that they form part of the same case or controversy.”

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

Goff v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2020-10-21(a)

Here, the MCDCA Class claim (Count I) and the Usury Class claim (Count II) arise from the same nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a motion to vacate an arbitration award when the purported agreement arose from events in an action within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line v. Regec · filed 2020-10-28(a)

The contract purportedly giving rise to the arbitration award was, as conceded by Regec, formed as a result of litigation events in the condemnation action. The relationality required by § 1367(a) was unquestionably present.

Section 1367(a) can cover claims that form part of the same case or controversy even when those claims do not depend on one another for their merits.

Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Community Mental Health · filed 2020-10-29(a)

The simple fact that claims are part of the same case or controversy does not mean that they are dependent upon one another. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing these claims on that basis.

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

Bishara Dental PLLC v. Morris Lendais Hollrah & Snowden PLLC · filed 2020-10-30(a)

MLHS contends, and Bishara Dental does not dispute, that all of the allegations against it arise out of the same case or controversy for purposes of the supplemental jurisdiction statute. (Doc. No. 8 at 5). As described previously, all of Bishara Dental’s claims relate to alleged unfair debt collection practices by MLHS. (See Doc. No. 1, Ex. B). Accordingly, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Roy v. Pioneer Human Resources Inc · filed 2020-11-02(a)

The federal claims and state claims derive from the same facts and controversy. Therefore, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the same set of facts as claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction.

Strojnik v. Choice Hotels International Incorporated · filed 2020-11-02(a)

In addition, because Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a common set of facts underlying all of his claims, the Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims that lack a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

MEBANE V. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. · filed 2020-11-05(a)

The Court thus concludes that Plaintiff’s tort claims do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts as the FLSA claim, and therefore the statute provides no basis upon which to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the North Carolina tort claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that stem from the same underlying event as federal claims.

DiscoverOrg Data, LLC v. Bitnine Global, Inc. · filed 2020-11-09(a)

Because these state law claims stem from the same underlying event as Plaintiff’s federal claims — Defendant’s unlawful use of information from Plaintiff’s database — the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

(PC) Reyes v. Matteson · filed 2020-11-10(a)

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

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

Earl v. Kinziger · filed 2020-11-17(a)

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if those claims are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367. The plaintiff’s claims against these defendants lack detail. At this point, the court will allow the plaintiff to proceed on supplemental state-law negligence claims against these defendants, but will dismiss them if, after discovery, the plaintiff does not identify anyone who was negligent regarding the filling.

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

Bryant v. Waddell · filed 2020-11-23(a)

Accordingly, the legal malpractice claim is not so related to the claims within the original jurisdiction of the Court that they form part of the same case or controversy such that supplemental jurisdiction is not applicable.

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

Tallman v. Jeanpierre · filed 2020-11-25(a)

In this case, Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against Dr. Jeanpierre is part of the same case or controversy as his federal claim.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a state law conversion counterclaim that lacks a common nucleus of operative fact with an FLSA wage claim.

Bruce v. Sana Health, Inc · filed 2020-11-30(a)

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish that supplemental jurisdiction exists based on a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the same facts as claims within its original federal jurisdiction.

M.E.B. v. Credit Control Services, Inc. · filed 2020-12-04(a)

The Court also finds this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. ... Again, Plaintiff provides no legal support for severing state law claims which are based upon the same facts as the properly-removed, federal statutory claims.

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

Little Kids, Inc. v. 18th Avenue Toys, Ltd. · filed 2020-12-10(a)

The problem, as Little Kids points out, is that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) permits the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state law claims, when, as is alleged here, they are part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to and forming part of the same controversy as federal claims.

SAIYED v. ARCHONA,INC Inc. · filed 2020-12-14(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because they are related to and form part of the same controversy as Plaintiff’s federal claims.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to a nondiverse intervenor’s claim to proceeds when that claim depends on the same tort claims underlying the original action.

Roth v. Builder's Stone & Masonry, Inc. · filed 2020-12-18(a)

MEM’s share of the proceeds from plaintiff Mary Roth’s recovery relies on the same tort claims against defendants, making it part of the same case or controversy. Supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) applies to MEM’s claims against plaintiff and so diversity jurisdiction will continue to exist after MEM intervenes and is aligned as defendant.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim arising from the same visits as an ADA claim because the claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Johnson v. Cortese · filed 2020-12-21(a)

Moreover, Mr. Johnson’s claim for relief pursuant to the Unruh Act is related to the ADA claim because it arises out of the same “case or controversy,” namely Mr. Johnson’s visits to Checkers where he encountered alleged violations of both laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Therefore, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Johnson’s Unruh Act claim.

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

Strojnik v. Albuquerque Boca Hotel, LP · filed 2020-12-23(a)

The Court denies Plaintiff’s initial Motions to remand the brand deceit claims, Motions 36 and 37, because Plaintiff’s brand deceit and ADA claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.

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

Mazzei v. The Money Store · filed 2020-12-30(a)

Because this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 60(d)(3) claim, it can exert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under Rule 37 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Section 1367(a) permits district courts to exert jurisdiction over claims that “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Claims are part of the same case or controversy where they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234, 245 (2d Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff bases both his Rule 60(d)(3) claim and his Rule 37 claim on the discovery disputes in Mazzei I. The Court, therefore, has supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over putative class claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Ceres Enterprises, LLC v. Travelers Insurance Company · filed 2021-01-12(a)

A court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as any claim over which the court has original jurisdiction. ... Lest there be any doubt on the issue, however, the Court views Plaintiff’s putative class claims as forming part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s individual claims.

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

SHUKLA v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEMS · filed 2021-01-26(a)

Such claims do not “form part of the same case or controversy”, indeed are not even tangentially related to claims against the other Defendants here which focus on an alleged conspiracy to sabotage his employment discrimination lawsuit, psychologically torment him, and control him through cyber espionage and biochemical manipulation.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims against another defendant when they arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Gold Town Corp. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2021-02-02(a)

Here, were the Court to have federal-question jurisdiction over Gold Town’s claims against UPS, it plainly would have supplemental jurisdiction over Gold Town’s claims against Ransom. ... Gold Town’s claims against both UPS and Ransom clearly arose from the same “nucleus of operative fact,” to wit, the delivery to Ransom by UPS of the necklace he had ordered from Gold Town.

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

Colon-Gonzalez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2021-02-05(a)

Once federal jurisdiction is determined, the Court may exercise supplemental or pendant jurisdiction on a state law claim, i.e. Act 100, Act 69, Puerto Rico Constitution and damages by Arts. 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code (see P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 31 §§ 5141-5142), provided that it is part of the same case or controversy of the federal question before this Court. ... Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion and apply supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims asserted over, to wit, Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; P.R. Law 100 of June, 30, 1959, P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29 § 146 et seq.; Puerto Rico Law No. 69 of July 6, 1985, P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29 §. 1321 et seq.; Puerto Rico Law 80 of May 30, 1976, P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29 § 185 et seq.; and damages pursuant to Articles 1802 and 1803 of Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. 31 §§ 5141- 5142.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims when resolving the original claim necessarily brings their underlying facts before the court.

Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP · filed 2021-02-12(a)

Accordingly, presentation of Miller’s claim that certain compensation was wrongfully withheld will necessarily bring before the Court the facts underlying L&K’s state law counterclaims regarding Miller’s purported disloyalty to the firm. As a result, L&K’s counterclaims “form[] part of the same case or controversy as the claims already before the Court and [they are] thus within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.” Stefanovic, 2019 WL 3745657, at *2 (under similar circumstances, denying motion to dismiss faithless servant counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction). Miller’s motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is denied.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against other defendants when those claims form a single controversy with a claim supporting federal jurisdiction.

Williams v. Lockheed Martin · filed 2021-02-26(a)

Federal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against McCarty and TSI is supplemental to this federal-officer jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Plaintiffs’ claims against the various defendants form a single controversy: a claim for damages from Williams’ death from mesothelioma, allegedly caused by asbestos exposure on the job.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over crossclaims that arise from the same case or controversy as the original action.

Benchmark Insurance Company v. SUNZ Insurance Company · filed 2021-02-23(a)

Because the Court finds that Century’s and Payday’s crossclaims derive from the same case or controversy as the original action, the Court will deny SUNZ’s Motion to Dismiss the crossclaims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when the proof needed for that claim overlaps with the proof needed for a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

King v. DeJesus · filed 2021-03-02(a)

Accordingly, King’s medical malpractice claim is not “so related” to his federal claim that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

Camillo v. Campbell Clinic P.C. · filed 2021-03-02(a)

Although Olinger asserts without argument that ... the claims arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact.” ... The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

OJO v. MILROSE 179 HARRISON, LLC · filed 2021-03-04(a)

Where federal question jurisdiction exists, a federal court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over associated state-law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Ojos’ state claims arise from the same landlord-tenant dispute and litigation that underlie the federal FDCPA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims against individual defendants when those claims are so related to federal claims against the employer that they form the same case or controversy.

Cunningham v. General Motors LLC · filed 2021-03-04(a)

The claims against the individual defendants are “so related” as to present essentially the same “case or controversy” as the federal claims against the employer, and the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires a state law claim to be part of the same case or controversy as the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction; a products liability claim about a stun belt’s design and manufacture was not sufficiently related to constitutional claims about officers’ use of it.

Gordon, Samterious v. Vanderwerff · filed 2021-03-09(a)

A products liability claim would concern the design and manufacturing of the stun belt. These claims are not sufficiently related that they should proceed together in the same lawsuit.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims were dismissed when federal claims against other defendants remain pending in the same case.

Baqer v. St. Tammany Parish Government · filed 2021-03-22(a)

As such, and because the state law claims against Defendants “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 ITI,” the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the proof needed for them overlaps with the proof needed for the federal claims.

Sheppard v. Bowens · filed 2021-03-28(a)

The evidence necessary for Sheppard to succeed on his state law claims will not overlap with the evidence necessary for Sheppard to succeed on his federal claims. Therefore, Sheppard’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that derive from the same nucleus of operative fact as a federal claim.

Abrahams v. Simplify Compliance, LLC · filed 2021-03-30(a)

When this case was removed, the Court had supplemental jurisdiction over Abrahams’s D.C.-law claims because they derived from the same “nucleus of operative fact” as his federal claim.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim so related to a federal-question claim that both form part of the same case or controversy.

Gillispie v. Lawson · filed 2021-03-30(a)

Furthermore, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it is so related to the federal-question claim that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim so related to federal-question claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Page v. Shell · filed 2021-03-30(a)

Furthermore, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it is so related to the federal-question claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

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

Parsons v. Kroger Limited Partnership I · filed 2021-03-31(a)

The detrimental reliance claim patently forms part of the same case or controversy as the purported WPCA claim, and the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

Arthur v. Windsor Shadows Homeowner's Association · filed 2021-03-31(a)

These actions do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. Instead, these claims are wholly separate and would not ordinarily be expected to be tried together; they belong in a different forum. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that does not arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Burton v. Maximus Federal · filed 2021-04-01(a)

Further, the Court finds that Burton’s claim regarding her unemployment benefits does not arise from “the same case or controversy” as her FMLA and ADA claims. The Court, therefore, also lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); accord United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966) (“The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”).

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

Lee v. Stone · filed 2021-04-02(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate if the pendent state law claims are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim. ... Here, Lee’s defamation claim against Zane Stone is part of the same case or controversy as the federal §1983 claims.

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

McElroy v. Valley Joist, LLC · filed 2021-04-13(a)

The Court thus finds—despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary—the claims against Dr. Christensen and ROC do not derive from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as the federal claims against Valley Joist.

Section 1367(a) does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that do not arise from the same case or controversy as the surviving federal claims.

Davis v. Gossnell · filed 2021-04-15(a)

Because the Plaintiff’s negligence claims are not part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims that have passed initial review, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such negligence claims, and they are dismissed.

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

Meza-Perez v. Sbarro LLC · filed 2021-04-16(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Nevada state law claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) because the state law claim is so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against public defenders arising from their representation when those claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal civil-rights claims against other defendants.

Lawrence v. Jefferson Parish Public Defenders · filed 2021-05-03(a)

As in Holloway, the state-law claims against Tompson in this case do not arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the Section 1983 claims alleged against the other Defendants.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state medical malpractice claim without a related federal medical care claim.

Weinert v. Whitman · filed 2021-05-11(a)

Weinert does not have any medical care claims in this case from which he can assert supplemental jurisdiction over related medical malpractice claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction, and those state-law claims may proceed when federal claims survive dismissal.

Hernandez-Zorrilla v. Rossello-Nevares · filed 2021-05-12(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear state-law claims when, and if, the federal court has original jurisdiction in the action and the claims “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because the Court does not dismiss all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, Plaintiff’s state-law claims survive Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

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

Avalos v. Sidhu · filed 2021-05-17(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim under the California Unruh Act as it arises out of the same “case or controversy” as the ADA claim, namely Plaintiff’s visit to the Business and Property where he encountered alleged violations of both laws.

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

NFINITYLINK Communications, Inc. v. City of Monticello, Kentucky · filed 2021-05-24(a)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state conversion and trespass claims against CTS because those claims do not form part of the same case or controversy as the remaining federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the state and federal claims share a common nucleus of operative fact; claims based on separate post-termination conduct do not qualify.

Zeltman v. Infinigy Solutions, LLC · filed 2021-05-24(a)

As the allegations underlying the federal and state claims do not arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact,” the claims do not “‘form part of the same case or controversy[.]’” See ADYB Engineered for Life, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59666, at *31 (quoting City of Chicago, 522 U.S. at 165). Thus, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for prima facie tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim when it shares significant factual elements with the claims under original jurisdiction and forms part of the same case or controversy.

MOBELY v. MERAKEY ALLEGHENY VALLEY SCHOOL · filed 2021-05-26(a)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s breach of contract Counterclaim because it does not share significant factual elements to form part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a negligence claim that arises from the same facts and events as a federal constitutional claim.

Moore v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2021-06-01(a)

Second, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against ODOC, as it involves the same set of facts and events as Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that are insufficiently related to federal claims to form part of the same case or controversy.

Holston v. Dawson · filed 2021-06-25(a)

They are not so related to any of Holston’s federal claims so as to form part of the same case or controversy, so the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

FOMCO, L.L.C. v. Hearthside Grove Association · filed 2021-06-29(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims, including Count VI, because they are part of the “same case or controversy” as the federal claims.

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

Doe v. The NYS Office of Children and Family Services · filed 2021-07-07(a)

D.B.’s § 1983 and state law claims (for, inter alia, assault and battery, harassment, and intentional inflection of emotional distress) undoubtedly arise from “the same ‘common nucleus of operative fact’”: they all stem from Defendants’ alleged sexual and physical abuse of her while she was a juvenile resident at Taberg. ... Therefore, the Court, at least at the outset of this case, had supplemental jurisdiction over D.B.’s state law claims under § 1367(a).

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

KOVALEV v. CALLAHAN WARD 12TH STREET, LLC · filed 2021-07-08(a)

Here, the test for supplemental jurisdiction is met. All of these claims arise out of the same event: Mr. Kovalev tripping on an allegedly defective sidewalk.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a fraud counterclaim arising from the same trademark licensing dispute as the federal infringement claim.

XCO Latin Workout LLC v. Functional Athletic Training Corporation · filed 2021-07-08(a)

The Court disagrees and determines that the fraud counterclaim forms part of the same case or controversy. ... Accordingly, the Court possesses supplemental jurisdiction over the fraud counterclaim.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain state law claims against a defendant when they arise from the same underlying facts as federal claims that remain against other defendants.

Blair-Scott v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-07-21(a)

The remaining state law claims against the District arise out of the same underlying allegations as the § 1983 claims against the officers, see Am. Compl., and thus share a “common nucleus of operative fact,” Simmons v. District of Columbia, 750 F. Supp. 2d 36, 41 (D.D.C. 2010) (retaining jurisdiction over state law claims against the District because remaining Fourth Amendment claims against corrections officers arose out of the same body cavity search). At least at this time, the Court will retain jurisdiction over Blair-Scott’s state law claims against the District.

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.

S.M. v. The City of New York · filed 2021-07-26(a)

Here, the Court has original jurisdiction over several viable Section 1983 claims. Additionally, S.M.’s state claims relate to the same facts as her federal claims. Indeed, she contends that her state right to appropriate placement was violated by her long stay at Euphrasian and the hardship she alleges she suffered there. Based on these findings, the Court concludes that supplemental jurisdiction over S.M.’s state-law claims is proper.

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

McVay v. Stefanou · filed 2021-07-30(a)

Since Defendants present no argument that the emotional distress claims do not arise out of the same facts as the federal law claims—and the Court itself perceives the claims’ close factual linkage—the Court shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McVay’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that stems from the same underlying event as a federal claim.

Love v. iCustom Clothing LLC · filed 2021-08-02(a)

Because Plaintiff’s state law claim stems from the same underlying event as Plaintiff’s federal claim—Defendant’s ownership of a business that allegedly does not permit access by people with disabilities such as Plaintiff—the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

Legaux v. Mercer Investments, Inc. · filed 2021-08-03(a)

Therefore, the Court finds that it can assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s twelve state law claims because they form part of the same case or controversy as required by § 1367(a).

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

Smith v. MFA Oil Company · filed 2021-08-09(a)

Plaintiff’s MHRA claims arise from the same case or controversy as his ADAAA and FMLA claims. He alleges that he has a disability and Defendants terminated him, failed to accommodate his disability, and interfered with his right to take FMLA leave, thus violating both state and federal law. This Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and II.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when they are sufficiently related to claims in federal court to form part of the same case or controversy.

SABETPOUR v. MARTINEZ · filed 2021-08-10(a)

Here, however, there are no federal claims remaining against Sorrel; there is no diversity jurisdiction, as both Plaintiff and Sorrel reside in New Jersey; and the state law claims are not so related to the claims properly in federal court as to be considered part of the same case or controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Niewiedzial v. Robinson Medical Staff · filed 2021-08-19(a)

The allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as the federal constitutional claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim merely because it arises from the same employment relationship as the original claims.

Gillaspy v. Club Newtone, Inc · filed 2021-08-19(a)

The only commonality between Gillaspy’s and Club Newtone’s claims is the employment relationship between the parties; however, that is insufficient to establish supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same facts as federal claims when they form part of the same case or controversy.

Willard v. Officer Ransom · filed 2021-08-25(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when they are “so related” to the federal claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” ... The Court will permit Plaintiff to proceed against Defendant Ransom and Defendant Bongiovi under a state law negligence theory on the same facts.

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

Rosenman v. Facebook Inc. · filed 2021-08-27(a)

Additionally, this Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the fraudulent prong of the UCL and for unjust enrichment because these claims, which also concern Facebook’s alleged conduct in degrading its data practices, arise from “the same case or controversy” as Plaintiff’s UCL unfair prong claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law medical malpractice claim that is so related to an Eighth Amendment claim as to form the same case and controversy.

TRAINOR v. WELLPATH · filed 2021-09-01(a)

The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Trainor’s state law medical malpractice claim because it is so related to his Eighth Amendment claims as to form the same case and controversy.

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

Holguin v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo · filed 2021-09-09(a)

The Court finds that Mr. Holguin’s gross negligence claim is sufficiently closely related to his claims arising under federal law as to “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim whose underlying facts are directly related to federal claims in the action.

DeLong v. Carrillo · filed 2021-09-13(a)

Because the underlying facts of the state claim are directly related to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court finds it has supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

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

Woods v. Swiss Krono USA, Inc. · filed 2021-09-17(a)

The magistrate judge concluded that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Swiss Krono’s counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the counterclaims are part of the same case and controversy as Woods’ federal claims. ... The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 14, is ACCEPTED, and Woods’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.

Section 1367(a) allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same alleged conduct and employment relationship as a federal claim.

Lane v. Gray Transportation, Inc . · filed 2021-09-20(a)

The Plaintiff’s state law claims — violation of West Virginia Code § 5-11-1 et seq. (Count I: Discrimination / Wrongful Termination) and violation of West Virginia Code § 21-5-1 et seq. (Count II: Wage Payment) — are so related to the same alleged conduct by the same Defendants as described in Plaintiff’s federal claim. The claims implicate the employment relationship and matters that allegedly occurred during Plaintiff’s tenure. The interests of judicial economy, efficiency and fairness to the litigants outweigh the federalism concerns present. Therefore, this Court can and will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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

Hernandez v. Welcome Sacramento LLC · filed 2021-09-23(a)

Here the court finds the claims are so related as to form the basis of the same case or controversy. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Hernandez’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a tortious interference counterclaim when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the original patent claims.

Tools Aviation, LLC v. Digital Pavilion Electronics LLC · filed 2021-09-23(a)

The Court thus finds that, at a minimum, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ tortious interference counterclaim.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; the possibility that evidence from one claim could help prove another does not suffice.

Eleazu v. Bernard · filed 2021-09-27(a)

The mere fact that the information in the transcript may help him prove that he is entitled to amend his records under the Privacy Act is not sufficient to show these claims arise from the same case or controversy under § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims arising from the same employment controversy as an FLSA claim.

Thompson v. Made to Move Inc. · filed 2021-10-07(a)

The undersigned finds that because the state law claims arise out of the same controversy as the FLSA claim, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 covers State-law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Smith v. Swaffer · filed 2021-10-07(a)

Moreover, to the extent any question remains about personal jurisdiction over Mr. Swaffer regarding the State-law claims of Areti Ventures and BWO, or any other Plaintiffs for that matter, those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims, such that (1) they form part of the same case and controversy under Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and (2) there is no substantive or procedural unfairness to Mr. Swaffer from defending against those claims here.

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

Davis v. Cornely · filed 2021-10-14(a)

Defendants’ counterclaims are reasonably derivative of the parties’ landlord-tenant relationship and those same facts and allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. Mr. Davis pleads no exception under 28. U.S.C. § 1367(b) or (c) to justify a refusal by this Court to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaims is proper and best serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that lacks a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim under original jurisdiction.

INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING, INC. v. JOHNSON · filed 2021-10-21(a)

Accordingly, Mr. Johnson's conspiracy claim does not arise out of the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs' claims and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

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

ANGLE v. MONTAG · filed 2021-10-29(a)

Second, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Angle’s state law professional negligence claim because it is so related to his Eighth Amendment claims as to form the same case and controversy.4 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Patrick v. Local 51, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO · filed 2021-11-03(a)

However, the Court may exercise 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). The claims must “stem from the same common nucleus of operative fact” and “be such that the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321, 332 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s claims in the relevant paragraphs all relate to a series of alleged constitutional violations that led to Plaintiff’s termination. Therefore, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 301(a) claims based on violations of the Local 51 Constitution and By-Laws.

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

Moore v. Jackman · filed 2021-11-09(a)

The allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as the federal constitutional claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are sufficiently related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction to form part of the same case or controversy.

de Jesus-Correa v. Hospital Episcopal San Lucas, Inc. · filed 2021-11-12(a)

Rodríguez and Maribel’s medical malpractice claims are “so related” to their EMTALA claim. Accordingly, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico law causes of action.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over claims that grow out of the same nucleus of operative fact as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Nelson v. Park City 3&4 Apartments, Inc. · filed 2021-11-15(a)

The remainder of Nelson’s claims come within this court’s supplemental jurisdiction because they grow out of the same nucleus of operative fact as the contract claims.

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

Goss v. New London · filed 2021-11-16(a)

The state law battery claims asserted in the Amended Complaint “form part of the same case or controversy” as the Fourth Amendment claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Accordingly, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are not part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Harbord v. MTC Financial Inc · filed 2021-11-29(a)

Because those claims are not part of the same case or controversy as her federal claims against other defendants arising from the abandoned foreclosure against her property, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Preston v. Wiegand · filed 2021-11-22(a)

Therefore the federal and administrative review claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Schmidt v. Nodine · filed 2021-12-06(a)

Because the Illinois state law claims all arise from the same operative facts, they are sufficiently related to satisfy the requirements of § 1367(a) and will not be dismissed.

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.

Seelig v. Old Vegas Manor and Estates Homeowners Association · filed 2021-12-06(a)

McAnally’s conduct underlies both the federal and state claims, so those claims share a common nucleus of operative fact such that they comprise the same case or controversy.

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

Krementz v. Siddiqui · filed 2021-12-10(a)

The allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as the federal constitutional claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same underlying conduct as a federal due process claim.

Leigh v. Sacks · filed 2021-12-13(a)

Additionally, plaintiff’s state law claims arise from the same underlying conduct that plaintiff contends amounts to a due process violation. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) covers counterclaims that share a nucleus of operative fact with an interpleader claim.

Minnesota Life Insurance Company v. Estate of Molly R. Stacey · filed 2021-12-13(a)

The Staceys’ claims involve the interpleaded funds and are part of the same nucleus of operative fact and there is a logical relation between the Staceys’ claims and the interpleaded funds.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim arising from the same visit as a federal ADA claim.

Johnson v. An Khang Mi Gia · filed 2021-12-14(a)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim for relief pursuant to the Unruh Act is related to the ADA claim because it arises out of the “same case or controversy”—namely, Plaintiff’s visit to the Restaurant where, he alleges, both laws were violated.

State law claims involving the same products as federal Lanham Act claims arise from the same case or controversy and fall within supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a).

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Technology Co. · filed 2021-12-21(a)

Further, Plaintiffs’ FAL and UCL claims under California law involve the same products at issue and therefore arise out of the same “case or controversy” as the Lanham Act claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Accordingly, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Ameriway Corporation v. Chen · filed 2021-12-27(a)

Here, Chen’s “state law” claims and Ameriway’s “RICO claim[] arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.” ... Therefore, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Third- Party Complaint.