28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common factual nucleus with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction, even when that original claim seeks confirmation of an arbitration award.

UniCredit Bank Austria AG v. Inmobiliaria y Arrendadora Cuadro S.A. de C.V. · filed 2024-12-16(a), (c)

A court may exercise 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” but may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if “the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over UniCredit’s state law claims and must address whether they are sufficiently pleaded.

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

Curry-Fishtorn v. Smith · filed 2022-01-05(a)

However, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for aggravated assault, battery, and police brutality against Defendant Smith because these claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts with Plaintiff’s federal claim of excessive force.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law right-of-publicity claim arising from the same unauthorized use of images as a federal Lanham Act claim.

Hinton v. Completely Innocent LLC · filed 2022-01-07(a)

As to Plaintiffs’ only remaining state-law claim—violation of the common-law right of publicity—this Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction because the claim arises out of the same case or controversy, i.e., Defendant’s unlawful use of Plaintiffs’ images.

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

Hinton v. Pearson · filed 2022-01-11(a)

As the plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery arise from the same facts underlying his excessive force claim, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the assault and battery claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share a common factual basis with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Cayton v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County · filed 2022-01-19(a)

Here, supplemental jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiffs’ FLSA and unjust enrichment claims share a common factual basis.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact; claims concerning different time periods and events do not qualify.

Adeniji v. New York City Department of Finance · filed 2022-01-27(a)

The two claims focus on different time periods and do not share a “common nucleus of operative fact.” Torres, 628 F. Supp. 2d at 468. Therefore, there is no supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim against The Harman Firm.

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

Goss v. New London · filed 2022-02-08(a)

The state law battery claims asserted in the SAC “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) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ross v. Lopez · filed 2022-02-10(a)

The Court finds these claims are so related to Ross’s other claims in this action — specifically his Eighth Amendment claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction — that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.

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

McLaurin v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2022-02-10(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the IHRA claims because they arise out of the same case or controversy as the Title VII claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Behrends Revocable Trust, The v. Great Bend, Kansas, City of · filed 2022-02-10(a)

And the court concludes that plaintiffs’ Kansas common law claims “are so related” to the § 1983 claim “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that do not share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Putzmeister America Inc v. Pompaction Inc · filed 2022-02-16(a)

I conclude that the counterclaims to which the German entities are joined do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts with the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.

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

Hernandez v. ARS Hospitality, Inc. · filed 2022-02-22(a)

Here, the ADA claims and the state law claims “share a common nucleus of operative fact and are part of the same case or controversy.” Id.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over alter-ego and successor-liability claims brought with an underlying federal claim when they involve the same facts and controversy.

Trustees of the Iam National Pension Fund v. M & K Employee Solutions, LLC · filed 2022-03-01(a)

The claims against Laborforce and the Sales Entities involve the same facts and the same controversy as the ERISA claim, and this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Napier v. Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County · filed 2022-03-10(a)

Additionally, the state law claims 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).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim because they share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Sinegal v. Big Horn Auto Sales, Inc. · filed 2022-03-16(a)

Because the court has federal-question jurisdiction based on Sinegal’s claim under § 1692f, and the state-law claims are part of the same case or controversy involving “a common nucleus of operative fact,” the court has jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims closely related to claims within its original jurisdiction when they form part of the same case or controversy.

Watson v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. · filed 2022-03-21(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any other state law claims that relate to the ESIP (including without limitation Plaintiff Glenn Watson’s claims for punitive damages and an accounting of the ESIP) because such claims are so closely related to the action within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form a part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that concern the same issues and facts as claims within original federal jurisdiction and form part of the same case or controversy.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Nexus Services, Inc. · filed 2022-03-22(a)

Having determined that plaintiffs’ CFPA claims confer original jurisdiction, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The state law claims concern the same issues and facts as the federal claims and are so related that they form part of the same case or controversy.

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

Johnson v. West Virginia University Board of Governors · filed 2022-03-28(a)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s factual allegations—which are entitled to the assumption of truth at this stage of the proceedings—state plausible Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference against Drs. Ghorayeb and Lai, this Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they relate to and are part of the same claim and controversy as Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims.

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

Gumataotao v. Highsmith · filed 2022-03-28(a)

Because the federal and state law claims arise out of the same controversy, the court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over Gumataotao’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim whose connection to the surviving federal claims is only a broad shared subject rather than a common nucleus of operative fact.

Vincenzo v. Wallkill Central School District · filed 2022-03-29(a)

The Court recognizes that these claims are “connected in a very broad sense,” in that they address the alleged bullying E.V. endured while matriculating through the Wallkill and OU-Boces school districts; however, this “loose factual connection” is not enough to establish supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) covers a Kansas common law claim when it is so related to the ADA and FMLA claims that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Rutledge v. Johnson County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners · filed 2022-03-29(a)

And, the court concludes, plaintiffs’ Kansas common law claim is “so related” to the ADA and FMLA claims that it forms “part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that shares a factual nexus with a federal claim within its original jurisdiction.

Swanson v. Griffin · filed 2022-03-31(a)

When this matter first came to federal court, because the IPRA claim shared a factual nexus with Plaintiff's § 1983 claim, the Court had supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising from approximately the same events as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Israel v. City of Syracuse · filed 2022-04-07(a)

Because plaintiff fundamentally claims that Releford failed to remediate the other defendants’ alleged misconduct, those claims are approximately related, and supplemental jurisdiction exists.

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

Jarvis v. Oakland Macomb Obstretrics and Gynecology, P.C. · filed 2022-04-20(a)

Finally, to the extent that defendants challenge the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as plaintiff’s WPA claim “form[s] part of the same case or controversy” as her federal law claims.

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

Schmidt v. IAP Worldwide Services, Inc · filed 2022-04-22(a)

Even if the CBA did not exist on March 1, 2020, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jabara and John Does’ claims against IAP.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a common law claim arising from the same factual allegations as a claim within federal question jurisdiction.

Rocha v. JW Produce, Inc. · filed 2022-04-27(a)

Because his common law claim arises out of the same factual allegations as the PACA claim, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires supplemental jurisdiction to be analyzed claim by claim.

Raines v. Subway Development of WV · filed 2022-11-29(a)

Rather, supplemental jurisdiction must be analyzed claim by claim.

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

Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Florida · filed 2005-06-30(a)

As a preliminary matter, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) confers subject matter jurisdiction upon this Court to hear and decide the state-law claim. Because both of Plaintiffs discrimination claims arise from the County’s decision to terminate her employment as a correctional officer, the federal and state law claims “form part of the same case or controversy,” as section 1367(a) requires.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state declaratory judgment claim arising from the same employment termination as a federal FMLA claim.

Caldera v. County of El Paso, Tex. · filed 2007-11-02(a)

In addition, Plaintiffs claim for declaratory judgment forms part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs FMLA claim because both claims arise from Plaintiffs termination from County employment. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs declaratory judgment claim through exercising its power of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims, including claims arising from the same termination.

Wood v. CITY OF LANETT · filed 2008-04-15(a)

Second, pursuant to subpart (a) of § 1441, this court may hear Wood’s state-law claims because they are part of the same case or controversy as the federal-law claims, in that they both arise from Wood’s termination, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) confers supplemental original jurisdiction over such state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a personnel-records claim when the records were used in the termination underlying federal discrimination claims and the alleged concealment bears on pretext.

Harden v. Comcast · filed 2018-12-18(a)

Harden's PRRA claim satisfies these requirements because it concerns Comcast's alleged non-disclosure of records that were used in her termination, and Harden alleges that Comcast deliberately concealed those records because its stated reasons for firing her were pretextual. This factual nexus satisfies the jurisdictional requirement of section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim arising from the same firing as a plausible federal discrimination claim.

Guirkin, Jr., M.D. v. CMH Physicians, LLC · filed 2020-11-20(a)

Because the Court finds that Dr. Guirkin has stated a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII, it properly exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Guirkin’s Breach of Contract Claim which arises out of the same case or controversy: CMH’s decision to fire him.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same employment as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Abercrombie v. Carolina Speech and Hearing, Inc. · filed 2024-11-15(a)

Here, as all of Plaintiff’s claims stem from her employment by Defendants, declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims would be inappropriate at this time.

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

Williams, Jovan v. Nash, Jennifer · filed 2025-05-20(a)

I can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims because they are based on the same conduct that underlies his federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over other employment claims sufficiently intertwined with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Carrillo v. Monterey Mechanical Co. · filed 2025-06-10(a)

As the parties appear to agree, all of Carrillo’s claims arising out of the terms and conditions of his employment at Monterey are sufficiently intertwined that if at least one of them is preempted, the rest fall within supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same working conditions and employment relationship during the same period as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Hasty · filed 2025-12-08(a)

Accordingly, the Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Hasty’s remaining claims, which “arise from the same working conditions and relationship with [Hyatt] during the same period” as his Section 204 claim.

Section 1367(a) requires claims to derive from a common nucleus of operative fact; a shared employment relationship alone does not establish supplemental jurisdiction.

Clay v. District of Columbia · filed 2006-11-28(a)

Nor can it be said that Clay’s wrongful discharge claim is “so related to” his federal claims as to “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). While Clay’s federal and District law claims both generally relate to his employment with the District of Columbia, and while the resolution of Clay’s federal claims could in some sense affect the legal context of his wrongful discharge claim, these connections do not satisfy the constitutional minimum.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state discrimination claims when their overlap with federal wage claims is too slight for the claims to arise from the same case or controversy.

Shibetti v. Lgmaloney LLC · filed 2020-08-07(a)

Section 1367(a) of Title 28, United States Code, grants federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are so related to claims in the action within its original jurisdiction that the related claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution. ... The arguments plaintiffs have raised fail to convince me that the wage and discrimination claims here arise out of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim only when it is part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, as shown by shared facts, occurrences, witnesses, or evidence.

Hudson v. Delta Airlines, Inc. · filed 1996-08-05(a)

In deciding whether a state law claim is part of the same case or controversy as a federal issue, we look to whether the claims arise from the same facts, or involve similar occurrences, witnesses or evidence.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim only when it forms part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, assessed by shared facts, occurrences, witnesses, or evidence.

Hudson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 1996-09-20(a)

In deciding whether a state law claim is part of the same case or controversy as a federal issue, we look to whether the claims arise from the same facts, or involve similar occurrences, witnesses or evidence.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that involves the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Hernandez v. TWO BROTHERS FARM, LLC · filed 2008-09-29(a)

Based on the allegations contained in their complaint, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim involves the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence as their FLSA claim. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract meets 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)’s requirements for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires an additional plaintiff’s state-law claim to be part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction to attach.

Steven A. Shirley Peggy A. Shirley v. City of Whitefish, Montana Lonnie Herrmann William Labrie · filed 1996-12-06(a)

The district court did not err in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Mrs. Shirley's state claim for emotional distress and loss of consortium. Mrs. Shirley is not a party to Shirley's federal claim and has no federal claim of her own. Instead she seeks to be a party-plaintiff by asserting only a state claim. Her claim is not part of the same case or controversy required for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims by different plaintiffs when the claims concern the same property and basic dispute as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

NAHNO-LOPEZ v. Houser · filed 2009-05-20(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that the district courts have jurisdiction over claims which are so related to claims over which the court has original jurisdiction that all of the claims form part of the same case or controversy. All of the property in dispute is part of the same original Allotment No. 2329. Furthermore, the same basic dispute exists between all plaintiffs and the defendants with respect to the use of the properties in question. These alleged facts make the Pence Plaintiffs’ claims part of the same case or controversy as the Kerchee Plaintiffs' claims, and the court finds that it is appropriate to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over both sets of plaintiffs’ trespass claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims that arise from the same alleged acts as another plaintiff’s surviving federal claim.

4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC · filed 2014-03-10(a)

Although Grand Estates is dismissed as a plaintiff from the only remaining federal law claim arising under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Grand Estates’s state law claims have a close relationship to the § 1962(c) claim because they are based on the same alleged acts constituting wire fraud. Therefore, Grand Estates’s state law claims “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); ... Accordingly, the Court retains supplemental party jurisdiction over the state law claims of Grand Estates.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim arising from the same motor vehicle collision as another plaintiff’s claim that meets the diversity amount in controversy requirement.

BRENT v. FIRST STUDENT, INC. · filed 2020-05-20(a)

To the extent only Brent’s claims meet the amount in controversy requirement, it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harvey’s claims because all of the claims arise out of the same motor vehicle collision and thus “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over related claims of additional plaintiffs when it has original jurisdiction over a claim in the action.

Ariola v. Raytheon CA Technologies Corporation · filed 2023-09-06(a)

In other words, if this Court has federal-question jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims, then the Court will have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims arising from the same case or controversy, including the claims of other plaintiffs.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that arise from the same course of conduct as associated federal claims.

Sriram v. Preferred Income Fund Iii Limited Partnership · filed 1994-04-26(a)

A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims when it has jurisdiction over associated federal claims that "form part of the same case or controversy." ... Because all of the claims seek to vindicate a wrong arising out of the same course of conduct, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the corresponding state claims was proper.

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

Pruitt v. Pernell · filed 2005-01-05(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has jurisdiction over all 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). Here, the events that occurred at Joe Pizza on the evening of April 23, 1999 form the basis of Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and his state law claims. ... Accordingly, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these claims is proper.

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same conduct as claims within their original jurisdiction.

Corbond Corp. v. Core Foam, Inc. · filed 2005-01-31(a)

Because defendant failed to develop any argument rebutting plaintiffs state law claims of unfair competition and supplemental jurisdiction exists over those claims, I will deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs state law claims. ... Plaintiffs state and federal law claims concern the same conduct by defendant: plaintiff alleges that defendant’s use of the COREFOAM mark causes confusion among insulation consumers. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), “district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the 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.”

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

In Re Metropolitan Securities Litigation · filed 2007-11-05(a)

The Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section 1367 provides that, when a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, the court also has “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” In this case, the Plaintiffs’ state law claims form part of the same case or controversy as the Plaintiffs’ Securities Act claims because all of the claims arise from the purchase of the Met Group’s securities between February 13, 2001 and December 15, 2003.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same incidents and course of conduct as federal claims when they share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Campbell v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2010-08-17(a)

In this case, that issue is easily resolved since the parties are all in agreement and the Court concurs in the parties’ analysis that the federal and state claims involve the same common nucleus of operative fact and the Plaintiffs would ordinarily be expected to bring all the claims in one lawsuit. The state law negligence and loss of consortium claims undoubtedly arise out of the same incidents and address the same course of conduct as the underlying federal FELA and Locomotive Inspection Act claims.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising from the same conduct as a claim within original jurisdiction because the claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Jurich v. Compass Marine, Inc. · filed 2012-11-02(a)

The conversion claim is based on the same conduct as the wages claim and plainly constitutes part of the same case or controversy. ... Absent argument to the contrary, the Court easily concludes that Section 1367(a) applies and bestows subject matter jurisdiction over Count Two.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over territorial-law claims premised on the same conduct as federal claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Dorval v. Moe's Fresh Market · filed 2018-09-10(a)

Dorval’s two IIED claims are premised on the same conduct Dorval alleges violated § 1981. Accordingly, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dorval’s IIED claims as well.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same incident as a surviving federal claim.

Whitehouse v. Piazza · filed 2005-10-25(a)

Plaintiffs’ state law claims derive from the same incident as the federal law claim. Since Whitehouse has successfully stated a claim under Section 1983 and Defendants have not made any substantive arguments about why the state law claims should be dismissed, this Court .will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same incidents as surviving federal claims, even when the federal claims against the state law defendant are dismissed.

Nelson v. County of Sacramento · filed 2013-02-26(a)

Plaintiffs state law allegations stem from the same incidents that comprise Plaintiffs remaining § 1983 claims against Vale and Shelldorf. Therefore, even though this Court dismisses the § 1983 claims against the Sheriffs Department, it retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims against the Sheriffs Department.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims arising from the same incident as a federal claim when no subsection (c) ground applies, but excludes a claim whose connection to that incident is not alleged.

Eng v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Public Safety · filed 2020-02-28(a), (c)

This Court therefore concludes that supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff’s claims against the Association arising from the 7/26/16 Incident because those claims arise from the same case and controversy as Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against the State Defendants. Further, none of the situations listed in § 1367(c) exist in this case. ... This Court cannot conclude that the claim based on the Association’s alleged installation of the recording device is part of the same case and controversy as Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against the State Defendants. Supplemental jurisdiction does not exist as to Count XII.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state assault and battery claims arising from the same incident as a federal excessive-force claim.

Torres v. Ishee · filed 2022-03-18(a)

The Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim has passed initial review against Defendants Coffee and Ingram, and the Plaintiff appears to assert assault and battery claims against them for the same incident. 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 a state assault and battery claim arising from the same incident as federal excessive force and failure to intervene claims that passed initial review.

Miller v. Peterson · filed 2023-02-09(a)

The Court liberally construes the allegations as including a North Carolina claim for assault and battery, over which the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction at this time because it arises out of the same incident as the excessive force/failure to intervene claims that have passed initial review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an MMWA claim only when the complaint also asserts a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Rowland v. BISSELL Homecare Inc · filed 2023-07-10(a)

Section 1367(a)’s plain text reveals that supplemental jurisdiction applies only where multiple claims are being pursued in a single complaint, which is not the case here.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over claims against additional defendants when a single alleged wrong arises from interlocked events, making the claims part of the same case or controversy.

Roe v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital · filed 1992-08-21(a)

Where, as here, there is a single wrong alleged by a plaintiff arising out of an interlocked series of transactions and giving rise to the relief that is sought, the Court should find that the claims against all of the defendants form part of the “same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against an additional defendant when they form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within original federal jurisdiction.

Baker v. Farmers Elec. Co-op., Inc. · filed 1994-09-23(a)

Baker's claims against White are essentially identical to his claim against Farmers and form part of the same case or controversy. The district court properly exercised its pendent jurisdiction in removing the claims against White.

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims against one defendant that form the same case or controversy as claims within original jurisdiction against another defendant.

Gary v. Long · filed 1995-07-28(a)

Because the common law claims against him were “so related to [the common law] claims [against WMATA] ... that they form part of the same case or controversy ...,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court clearly had pendent jurisdiction over them.

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

Hart v. Mazur · filed 1995-11-06(a)

Truly, the Court is faced with one “case,” with one common nucleus of facts revolving around what happened that week and a half in late June 1993. It would be illogical and wasteful to force the state malpractice claims to be tried separately in the state court. Therefore, the Court, having jurisdiction over Hart’s EMTALA claims against Newport Hospital pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over all state-law claims against the Hospital, Mazur, and Lewis.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against an additional defendant when it arises from the same common nucleus of operative fact as a federal-question claim.

Lake Mohave Boat Owners Association v. National Park Service · filed 1996-03-12(a)

This claim arises out of the same common nucleus of operative fact as its claim against NPS. Since the federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over the NPS claim, we have supplemental jurisdiction over the SRI claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against an additional defendant when those claims form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Rivet v. Regions Bnk of LA · filed 1997-06-02(a)

Although we do agree that the Moitie/Carpenter rationale is inapplicable to the Browns, the district court —— having properly exercised removal jurisdiction as to the Mirannes’ claims against Regions and FSA —— could therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Mirannes’ claims against the Browns.

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

Phoenix Assurance Co. v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 1997-09-05(a)

Accordingly, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Phoenix’s claims against AFC Express and Mo-Ark, regardless of the status of these entities under the relevant statutes ’ and regulations. Phoenix’s claims against AFC and Mo-Ark are part of the same “case or controversy” as Phoenix’s claims against Red Arrow and Fast Track— all of Phoenix’s claims concern a single shipment of lost watches.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against additional defendants when they form part of the same case or controversy as a viable claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Doe v. Hartz · filed 1999-05-05(a)

First, the state-law claims as pleaded against all defendants “are' so related to claims in the action within [the] original jurisdiction [of the federal court] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Thus, it was more than reasonable for Doe’s counsel to rely on supplemental jurisdiction over her claims against the Church Defendants and her state-law claims against Hartz if she had a viable federal VAWA claim against Hartz.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against additional defendants when those claims form the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Mendoza v. United States · filed 2007-02-21(a)

In the instant case, this Court has original jurisdiction because Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint under the FTCA against the United States of America. The First Amended Complaint reveals that the claims against the remaining Defendants are so related to the claims against the United States that they form part of the same case or controversy. Thus, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against an additional defendant when it arises from the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Sperling v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2008-04-07(a)

Because the Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim against WMATA, see D.C.Code § 9-1107.01(81), the Court shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against the District because it arises out of the same case and controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action ... that they form part of the same case or controversy ...”); Plater v. District of Columbia, 530 F.Supp.2d 101, 107 n. 7 (D.D.C.2008) (exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the District where Plaintiff had initially filed suit against only WMATA).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against an individual defendant when those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims against another defendant.

Irizarry-Santiago v. Essilor Industries · filed 2013-03-13(a)

The Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against defendant Deterre is appropriate because they arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as her Title VII and ADEA claims against defendant Essilor. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that is “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that [it] form[s] part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a different defendant when they share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Long Beach Road Holdings, LLC v. Foremost Insurance · filed 2015-02-11(a)

However, the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the Plaintiffs state law claims against Fairmont provided that these claims “form part of the same case or controversy” as the federal claim alleged in the complaint — namely, the claim against Foremost for breach of the SFIP. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs state law claims against Fairmont arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as' the federal claims against Foremost, and, as such, the Court will exercise supplement jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against different defendants when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims remaining before the court.

Dahn v. Adoption Alliance · filed 2016-02-17(a)

However, the Court concludes that there is significant overlap between the facts underlying the state law claims against Adoption Alliance, Tem, and Little and the remaining claims against Amedie and Cramer such that they could be thought to involve “part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against different defendants when they arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Nguyen v. Am. Express Co. · filed 2017-10-13(a)

These facts establish that the federal and state claims arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact-the series of underlying transactions. ... Thus, because this Court has original question jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' federal law claims and supplemental jurisdiction over all of the Plaintiff's state law claims, the exception to the Unanimity Rule does not apply.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, including claims against another defendant, when they form part of the same case or controversy as a plausible federal claim.

LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW · filed 2020-06-01(a)

Because the Complaint pleads a plausible RICO action against the Pettegrow Defendants, including Trenton Bridge, and because the non-federal claims form part of the same case or controversy, there is supplemental jurisdiction to resolve the related state law claims, including the state law claims against Stephen Peabody, absent a persuasive showing why supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against a defendant facing no federal claim when it forms part of the same case or controversy as federal claims against a codefendant.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. FITZPATRICK · filed 2021-01-15(a)

Simply because Plaintiff has not pleaded that Olsen violated any federal law does not mean that Plaintiff’s claims against Olsen and Fitzpatrick do not “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits a district court hearing a federal claim to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against additional defendants arising from the same dispute.

Pianko v. General R.V. Center, Inc. · filed 2022-03-24(a)

The Court finds that supplemental jurisdiction permits it to combine in this Court, the federal Article VII claim against General, and the Plaintiff's ELCRA and other state law claims against General, Miller, and the other Defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a different defendant when they arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as a surviving federal claim.

Courtemanche v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-03-28(a)

With Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim against MSP remaining, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Motorola pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a medical malpractice claim involving different defendants and facts from an excessive force claim focused on officers' conduct.

Moss v. Schimp · filed 2020-04-02(a)

The excessive force claim focuses on the actions of the officers in confronting Plaintiff, while the medical malpractice claim focuses on medical care he received. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to this claim.

Section 1367(a) covers claims that share a loose factual connection with a claim under the court’s original jurisdiction.

Quela v. Payco-General American Credits, Inc. · filed 2000-02-17(a)

As long as a federal court has original jurisdiction of a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) dictates that the court “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.” ... Thus, Hakim’s claims exhibit the “loose factual connection” required for supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Alcar Group, Inc. v. Corporate Performance Systems, Ltd. · filed 2000-08-16(a)

I have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims “so related to claims in the action that they form part of the same case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The defendants argue that the contract claims in count I do not relate to the Agreement, but Count I states, among other things, that the defendants “have used Alcar’s trade name and trademark, ALCAR, without authorization, in violation of ... the Agreement.” This is manifestly part of the same case.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same basic facts as federal claims, but not over claims resting on essentially unrelated facts.

Bu Ex Rel. Bu v. Benenson · filed 2001-08-07(a)

Essentially, supplemental jurisdiction will be found where the state and federal claims arise from the same basic facts. Conversely, supplemental jurisdiction does not lie “when the federal and state claims rested on essentially unrelated facts.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a factual nexus with a claim within federal question jurisdiction.

McClean v. Duke Univ. · filed 2019-03-25(a)

Plaintiff's state claims all relate to the same factual nexus as Plaintiff's federal claims: Plaintiff's alleged rape, attempts to report and seek treatment following the rape, and the alleged harassment of Plaintiff by Bishop and Broderick. Therefore, these claims are all part of the same case or controversy, and this court may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires facts showing that a counterclaim shares a factual basis with the original federal claim; alleging costs from defending the suit does not establish that connection.

Northern Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Poynter · filed 2022-08-01(a)

Defendant’s counterclaim also fails to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the broader standard for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party claim when it shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a substantial federal claim and the claims would ordinarily be tried together.

MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts · filed 1995-12-08(a)

We believe that the third party complaint satisfies the prerequisites of Sec. 1367(a). 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, and 1337 confer subject matter jurisdiction over MCI's claim. MCI's action and Teleconcepts' third-party action both arise out of the fraudulent "hacking" activity which purportedly resulted in exorbitant long distance charges. Moreover, logic and prudent use of judicial resources dictate that these claims be tried in one judicial proceeding. Accordingly, the third-party action meets the test for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against an additional defendant when they share a common nucleus of operative facts with a substantial federal claim and would ordinarily be tried together.

Tolan v. United States · filed 1998-01-08(a)

Applying these principles to this action and mindful of the standards governing both motions to dismiss and to amend pleadings, we find that the test for supplemental jurisdiction is amply satisfied. ... As such, these claims clearly arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts and would ordinarily be expected to be tried together, particularly in view of the likelihood that the defendants would file cross-claims against one another for contribution and/or indemnity.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as a substantial federal claim and ordinarily expected to be tried with it.

Farr v. Gonzo Corp. · filed 2001-06-25(a)

Plaintiffs claim that Defendant’s failure to warn Plaintiff and other putative class members of the danger of using Gonzo Stain Remover constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 123 is substantial; arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiffs other claims; and would ordinarily be expected to be tried in the same judicial proceeding as the state claims.

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

Humes v. Gilless · filed 2001-07-30(a)

A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and the claims are such that the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding. ... In the present case, Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same nucleus of facts. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state-law claims, and will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a different defendant when they substantially overlap factually with a federal claim and would ordinarily be tried with it.

Shovah v. Mercure · filed 2012-07-19(a)

Shovah’s federal claim against Mercure and his state law claims against the Diocese constitute the same case or controversy. The alleged facts underlying the claims substantially overlap: Mercure sexually abused Shovah and Shovah suffered injuries as a result. While Mercure is charged with committing the assault, the Diocese is charged with responsibility for the assault via its negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to prevent harm. A trial against the Diocese would necessarily involve the same facts as a trial against Mercure. Shovah would ordinarily be expected to try all his claims in one judicial proceeding.

Section 1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in a removed case dissolves when an amended complaint eliminates the federal claims that supported removal.

Joel v. Howard University · filed 2025-01-31(a)

Here, Ms. Joel has abandoned her claims arising under federal law, which were the basis for Howard University’s removal to this court. “Her deletion of all federal claims deprived [this court] of federal-question jurisdiction. And once that was gone, the court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims dissolved too.” Id. at *11. Accordingly, the court must remand this case to the Superior Court.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when an amended complaint removes every federal-question claim.

State of Minnesota v. GoodLeap LLC · filed 2025-01-16(a)

Consequently, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the Amended Complaint, and this case “must therefore return to state court.” Royal Canin, 2025 WL 96212, at *3.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when an amended complaint deletes every claim that supplied original federal jurisdiction.

Loeb v. Vergara · filed 2018-05-18(a)

Thus, there is "no jurisdiction-invoking claim to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach, and the court may not retain jurisdiction of the non-federal claims."

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the operative amended complaint supplies no basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Corrado v. City of Portland · filed 2022-01-26(a)

Because there is no diversity jurisdiction and because the Second Amended Complaint raises only state law claims, there is no basis for this Court to exercise original jurisdiction; thus, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 requires a basis for original jurisdiction; an amended complaint that omits the claims supplying that basis cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over its remaining claims.

Great White North Franchisee Association-USA, Inc. v. Tim Hortons USA, Inc. · filed 2021-07-26(a)

THUSA has provided no authority, nor has the Court found any, to support the contention that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be proper where, as here, an amended pleading omits the claims that previously vested the court with original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a superseding amended complaint leaves no federal claim to support them.

The Wellness Community Tm-National v. Wellness House F/k/a the Wellness Community Tm Chicago/western Suburbs · filed 1995-11-09(a)

The first is straightforward: once the First Amended Complaint superseded the original complaint, there was no federal claim to which these state claims could be “supplemental.”

When an amended complaint removes the sole federal claim, supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims ends and those claims must be dismissed without prejudice.

Carter · filed 2026-04-13(a)

In doing so, this court emphasizes at the outset that the parties are in agreement that, if it grants plaintiff’s request to file an amended complaint asserting purely state-law claims, then it must thereupon dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Having dismissed the claim which provides the sole basis for federal jurisdiction in this case, the remainder of this lawsuit will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when a post-removal amended complaint eliminates all federal claims.

Twitchell · filed 2026-04-22(a)

Plaintiff's SAC has “eliminated any basis for federal-question jurisdiction” and without a federal question, there remains no supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence claims based on the same allegations as adequately pleaded federal § 1983 claims.

Presley v. Jones · filed 2019-10-31(a)

Presley also has filed a motion to join this § 1983 action with a proposed tort action under state law based on the same allegations. (ECF No. 21.) Because Presley states a claim under § 1983 against Defendant Moore and Shelby County, the Court will allow him to proceed on his state law claims of negligence against those Defendants under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. His motion is therefore GRANTED in part.

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

Hansen v. Danish Tourist Board · filed 2001-05-19(a)

Here, the plaintiffs state law causes of action arise out of the identical set of factual allegations that form the basis of her federal causes of action. As such, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the interests of judicial economy.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims that share the same basic allegations with a claim within the federal court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Miller v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc. · filed 2004-06-29(a)

Mr. Miller’s claims all involve the same basic allegation that the defendants promised him certain benefits and later reneged. As a result, the claims are “so related ... that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and the exclusive federal jurisdiction over the claims regarding the retirement plan establishes supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against individuals when those claims share the same factual allegations with surviving federal claims against corporate defendants.

Villafañe-Colon v. B Open Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2013-03-26(a)

Although the federal causes of actions against the individual defendants have been dismissed, the Court can maintain ' jurisdiction over the Commonwealth claims remaining against them because there is a complete overlap in the factual allegations in these Commonwealth claims and- the federal claims which remain against the corporate defendants.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same factual allegations as a claim within their original jurisdiction.

Firebird Structures, LCC v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local Union No. 1505 · filed 2017-05-05(a)

Firebird Structures’ state-law tort claims are so related to its federal claim for damages under 29 U.S.C. § 187 as to form part of the same case ór controversy, because each state tort claim arises out of the same set of factual allegations regarding the Carpenters’ Union alleged campaign against Fire-bird Structures. ... Accordingly, under 28. U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Firebird Structures’ state tort claims.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law fraud claim when its allegations are integrally related to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Laborers' Pension Fund v. GA Paving, LLC · filed 2018-08-02(a)

The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over the fraud claim against Defendant Cefalu pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides for supplemental jurisdiction over 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). Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the purported fraud perpetrated by Cefalu are integrally related to the allegations regarding GA Paving’s attempts to circumvent its obligations under the Agreement. [See 1, ¶¶ 32–43.] Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction exists over the fraud claim against Cefalu.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims when the allegations, liberally construed, show that they form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

McCurty v. Aguirre · filed 2020-01-16(a)

The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that “‘district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations satisfy the statutory requirement. Therefore, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law tort claims.

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

Wagner v. Shasta County · filed 2020-05-20(a)

Moreover, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Wagner’s four state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. These claims arise out of the same factual allegations as Wagner's federal claims, and are “so related” to the federal claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy.”

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

Gakuba v. Wampler · filed 2023-03-28(a)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because they involve the same facts as the federal claims.

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

Misluk · filed 2025-09-25(a)

Here, the Court clearly has supplemental jurisdiction over state law employment discrimination claims based on the same operative facts as Plaintiff’s federal employment discrimination claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same transaction as a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Roberts v. Robert v. Rohrman, Inc. · filed 1995-10-05(a)

Section 1367 provides that once a district court has original jurisdiction over one claim in any civil action, that same court may adjudicate “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The other state law claims arise out of the same sale of the same Jeep, and thus are part of the same “case or controversy.”

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

Johnson v. Banc One Acceptance Corp. · filed 2003-07-07(a)

We exercise our supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to consider the plaintiffs’ state law claims because they arise out of the same transaction and occurrence as do their federal claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that arises from a different transaction than the claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Travelers Casualty v. Northwestern Mutual · filed 2007-03-13(a)

If the judge was right about the amount in controversy, the claim against Northwestern Mutual must indeed be dismissed for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction; it cannot be retained as a supplement to the claim against Merrill Lynch, because it arises out of a different trans- action.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence as claims within federal question jurisdiction.

Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University · filed 2015-09-16(a)

And because plaintiffs state claims in the SAC also arise out of the same transaction or occurrence — his expulsion from GMU — as his federal claims, it is also clear that there is supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising out of the same transactions as federal Lanham Act claims.

Park v. Song · filed 2020-03-10(a)

That made the case removable under the Lanham Act without regard to bankruptcy jurisdiction, as the state law claims arose out of the same transactions as the Lanham Act claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising on different dates from a federal claim when the alleged events together caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

Williams ex rel. Samayoa v. Board of Regents · filed 2014-01-06(a)

Although these additional claims do not arise out of identical facts and occurred earlier in time than the events leading to the federal claim, they nonetheless form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim, because it is all these events together that the Plaintiffs allege led to their injuries and damages.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction despite a time lapse between the underlying events.

Compton v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. · filed 2014-08-12(a)

Yet, these allegations are inextricably linked to the Sorority’s rejection of Laurin Compton and Lauren Cofield, and therefore, all claims share a common nucleus of operative fact despite the time lapse between certain underlying events.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim, including common evidence and witnesses.

Krehling v. Baron · filed 1995-06-23(a)

Applying this test to Plaintiffs claim against Defendant, both claims share common elements. First, they revolve around the central fraud involving the federal RICO claim. Second, the evidence for the non-federal claim will involve the same witnesses and evidence as the federal RICO claim. These parallel connections create the same case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution. Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction should be correctly exercised under § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over tort claims concerning the formation of a maritime contract when they share evidence and parties with admiralty contract claims.

Marina One, Inc. v. Jones · filed 2014-03-05(a)

Although the tort claims center primarily on the formation of the maritime contract and the contract claims primarily on its execution, all claims revolve around the actual or attempted formation of the Agreement and are therefore likely to involve largely the same evidence and parties. For these reasons, the Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 3, 4, and 5.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law employment contract claim that shares witnesses and evidence with a federal discrimination claim and forms part of the same case or controversy.

Lennon v. Alabama Telecasters, Inc. · filed 2020-01-24(a)

Lennon’s discrimination and contract claims arise out of his employment with WAKA, and the Court finds that these claims involve many of the same witnesses and evidence, and are so intertwined that they are part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, the Court finds it is appropriate to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to counterclaims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the original federal claim; a shared employment relationship and termination alone are insufficient.

Pecore v. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. · filed 2014-01-07(a)

The Court’s supplemental jurisdiction cannot reach Jennie-O’s counterclaims without a stronger factual bridge connecting them to Pecore’s claims.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share a product with a claim in original jurisdiction but involve different operative facts and contractual terms.

Prolite Bldg. Supply, LLC v. MW Mfrs., Inc. · filed 2018-05-22(a)

The operative facts differ, as do the contractual terms. ... The homeowners' claims therefore cannot proceed under the supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) reaches state claims only when they share a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims; an operative fact must be relevant to resolving the federal claim.

Lopez v. Brake Parts Inc LLC · filed 2020-05-05(a)

To form a part of the same case or controversy the state claims must arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims. ... For a fact to be “operative” it must be relevant to the resolution of the federal claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against other defendants when they arise from the same accident as claims within original jurisdiction.

Stark-Romero v. National Railroad Passenger Co. · filed 2011-01-12(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of the Esquibels’ claims against the other Defendants. The Esquibels’ claims against the other Defendants arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts, because they arise out of the same accident.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law insurance claims arising from the same accident as a federal ERISA claim, even when the claims involve different policies and injuries.

Askew v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. · filed 2016-11-15(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims exists when the state law claims “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). ... Similarly, in this case, while there are two insurance contracts that cover different injuries (i.e., plaintiffs personal bodily injuries and her alleged resulting disability), they arise out of the same automobile accident. ... Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim arising from the same alleged accident and injury as the original claims, if the counterclaim states a cognizable claim under the applicable law.

Whitchurch v. Canton Marine Towing Co. · filed 2018-01-31(a)

In the instant case, Canton Marine's counterclaim is that Plaintiff fabricated his accident and injury in order to receive maintenance and cure payments from Canton Marine. These claims have a strong factual connection to Plaintiff's claims for negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure based on the same alleged accident and injury. Therefore, this Court would have subject matter jurisdiction over Canton Marine's counterclaim, so long as it alleges a cognizable claim under the applicable law.

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

Ruffin v. Ahmed · filed 2020-01-10(a)

Plaintiff’s medical negligence claim in Count 4 derives from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim and will be allowed to proceed at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Randle v. Butler · filed 2020-02-07(a)

Plaintiff’s Illinois state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) arises from the same facts that give rise to Count 1 against Officer Doe #1. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits a state-law medical negligence claim to proceed with a federal constitutional claim when both derive from the same facts.

Thornton v. Doe · filed 2020-05-15(a)

Plaintiff’s medical negligence claim2 derives from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim in Count 1 and will be allowed to proceed at this stage.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim arising from the same controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction, even when the warranty claim lacks an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Woo v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. · filed 2020-05-28(a)

Nevertheless, although the Court finds it lacks federal question and diversity jurisdiction over plaintiffs' MMWA claim, such finding does not end the inquiry. Where, as here, a plaintiff brings one or more claims over which the court has original jurisdiction,4 at least two Courts of Appeals, as well as a number of district courts in the those two and other Circuits, have held such court has supplemental jurisdiction over an MMWA claim that "arise[s] from the same controversy." ... The Court finds the reasoning of those cases persuasive. Accordingly, to the extent Honda argues the Court lacks jurisdiction over the MMWA claim, the motion will be denied.

Section 1367(a) permits a state medical negligence claim to proceed with a federal constitutional claim when both arise from the same facts.

Ingram v. Sellers · filed 2020-05-28(a)

Ingram’s medical negligence claim derives from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim and will proceed at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law assault and battery claim that arises from the same facts as a federal excessive force claim.

Bradley v. Jones · filed 2020-06-22(a)

Because Bradley’s state law assault and batter claim involves the same facts as his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and Count 2 also survives screening against Garcia, Blake, Robinson, Evinger, Brockmyer, and John Doe 1.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims.

Alicea-Martinez v. Evertec Group LLC · filed 2020-06-30(a)

Finally, since all the asserted state-law claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal law claims, this Court must exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Force v. Advanced Structural Technologies, Inc. · filed 2020-08-06(a)

Plaintiffs additional state law claims all appear to arise out of the same facts that underlie his federal claims. Indeed, Plaintiff’s factual allegations appear in a single section of the FAC and form the basis for all 17 claims against Defendants. See FAC at ¶¶ 19–43. It is therefore appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Thompson v. Stover · filed 2020-10-19(a)

In a case containing federal and state law claims, a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that “are so related to [the federal law claims] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence derive from the same facts as his 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 operative facts as a federal claim.

El v. NationStar Mortgage LLC · filed 2020-12-09(a)

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which arise out of the same operative facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state negligence claims arising from the same conduct as federal constitutional claims.

Jones v. Thompson · filed 2021-01-08(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any negligence claims that are related to the federal constitutional violations. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, Plaintiff’s negligence claims arise from the same conduct that his Eighth Amendment violations do.

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

Suane v. Shah · filed 2021-06-28(a)

Because Suane’s allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims based on the same incidents as federal claims that proceed.

Budney v. Honeycutt · filed 2022-03-09(a)

The Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claims have passed initial review against Defendants Clawson and Stockton, and his assault and battery claims are based on the same incidents. The Court will, therefore, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery against Defendants Clawson and Stockton at this time.

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

Alexander v. Lencrerot · filed 2022-09-30(a)

Alexander’s assault and battery claims against Lencrerot are based on the same allegations as his now-dismissed federal Section 1983 claims, so the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim arising from the same incidents as a surviving federal claim.

Hoots v. Miller · filed 2022-10-03(a)

However, the defamation claim against Defendants Johnson, Halub, and Nurse Lisa is minimally sufficient to state a plausible claim, and arises out of the same incidents as the § 1983 failure to protect claim that has passed initial review. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim against Defendants Johnson, Halub, and Nurse Lisa at this time.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law medical malpractice claim based on the same facts as a federal deliberate indifference claim.

Clayborne v. Zerbst · filed 2022-10-13(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim are the same as those underlying his deliberate indifference claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claim against Zerbst and Brown. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same factual case as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

ZUCAL v. COUNTY OF LEHIGH · filed 2023-06-14(a)

Here, Plaintiffs state law claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress arises from the same factual case that forms the basis for our original jurisdiction. Therefore the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining claim.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims and third-party claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gaines v. Keasberry · filed 2023-07-25(a)

I therefore have supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims and third-party claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims that concern the same controversy as the original action.

Shammam v. American Honda Finance Corporation · filed 2024-10-28(a)

Here, the claims in Defendant’s third-party complaint against Barka and ILS concern ... the same controversy as Plaintiff's action against Defendant.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same controversy as claims within the district court’s jurisdiction.

Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC · filed 2025-08-15(a)

Because the Warranty Act claims arise ... out of the same controversy as the state law claims, the district court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Warranty Act claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a state-law claim to proceed with a federal claim when both arise from the same allegations.

Mejia · filed 2026-05-13(a)

Because the allegations derive from the same allegations as the federal claim, Count 3 also will proceed against the unknown officers.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a successor liability claim in the original action when it shares a central fact pattern with a claim under original federal jurisdiction.

United States Ex Rel. Bunk v. Government Logistics N.V. · filed 2016-11-15(a)

Accordingly, the Peacock principle is inapplicable here, and the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the successor corporation liability claim against GovLog was entirely appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only over related claims within the same civil action, not over a separate action.

Tomblin v. Geico Choice Insurance Company · filed 2021-12-06(a)

On the face of the statute, supplemental jurisdiction does not extend beyond a single action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a foreclosure counterclaim and a related third-party claim involving the same property and transaction as the principal action.

March v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2016-08-09(a)

The district court had supplemental jurisdiction over U.S. Bank’s ... counterclaim for foreclosure and third-party complaint against the Hawaii Department of Taxation, a junior lienholder. Both claims arose “out of the same transaction or occurrence” and “relate[d] to the property that [was] the subject matter of the principal action.”

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

LM Insurance Corporation v. Pro Services Inc · filed 2025-03-14(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Accordingly, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Pro-Services’ third-party claims is appropriate here.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim and a related third-party claim when the court has original jurisdiction over the complaint.

Keeton · filed 2025-11-03(a)

Because this court has jurisdiction of the Keeton’s complaint, supplemental jurisdiction extends to HEPTA’s Counterclaim against Mr. Keeton, and the Third-Party Complaint against Ms. Keeton.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim arising from the same lease clause as a federal claim, even if the counterclaim is permissive.

Channell v. Citicorp National Services, Inc. · filed 1996-07-11(a)

Now that Congress has codified the supplemental jurisdiction in § 1367(a), courts should use the language of the statute to define the extent of their powers. ... Signing and termination alike therefore were integral to this case even before Citicorp launched its counterclaim, and these events are at least as closely related as the claims that Baer and Strom-berg Metal Works held to be a single case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a common law fraud claim while related federal claims remain active and unresolved.

Biofeedtrac, Inc. v. Kolinor Optical Enterprises & Consultants, S.R.L. · filed 1993-09-09(a)

Certainly as long as plaintiff has active, unresolved federal claims against other defendants in this case, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider common law fraud claim against Kuehn and others.