28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 does not require a district court to remand a remaining state-law claim after resolving the federal claim, and remand is imprudent if the state-law theory does not exist or is preempted.

Decatur Memorial Hospital v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Bridgestone/firestone, Inc. · filed 1993-04-01

But it need not remand, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and a remand would be imprudent if the state-law theory does not exist or is preempted.

Section 1367 permits federal courts to hear state law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as federal claims, even without an independent jurisdictional basis.

House v. New Castle County · filed 1993-05-27(a)

A review of the total record leads this Court to agree with the Plaintiffs’ contention that all of the various state law claims here arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims such that judicial economy necessitates that all the claims be tried in one proceeding. These state law claims are therefore properly tried before this Court in accordance with the federal provision for supplemental jurisdiction authorizing federal courts to preside over state law claims otherwise lacking an independent jurisdictional basis. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same facts and present many of the same issues as a federal claim, even if the claims differ in some respects.

Shockley v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation · filed 1993-06-28(a)

It is clear, however, that the federal and state claims arose out of identical facts and presented many of the same issues. Although the CERCLA and state law claims differ in certain respects, the latter "form[ed] part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution" as the former, and so the district court had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the South Carolina causes of action.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party claim whose connection to the underlying federal action is too weak to constitute a common occurrence.

Ringer v. United States · filed 1993-10-20(a)

The Court will treat Williams’ assertion as an attempt to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The strength of the bond between Pistorius’ alleged activity and the § 6672 action is not strong enough to constitute a common occurrence.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a tort claim arising from a harassment incident nearly two years before the incident underlying the remaining federal retaliation claim.

Silva v. Universidad De Puerto Rico · filed 1993-10-22(a)

However, the Court does not consider the tort claim against Quiñones to be “so related” to the retaliation claim so as to warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This retaliatory incident allegedly took place almost two years later than the harassment incident.

Section 1367(a) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law assault and battery claim when the federal civil rights claim survives dismissal.

Palace v. Deaver · filed 1993-12-03(a)

Finally, defendants submit that plaintiffs state law claim be dismissed as well because she has stated no federal cause of action against them. In light of our previous rulings, this court shall retain supplemental jurisdiction of Count II of the amended complaint charging the defendant Robert Deaver with the common law tort of assault and battery.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when resolving the state law claim involves complex issues of state law.

Carey v. Cuomo · filed 1994-01-25(c)(1)

The proper interpretation of the State Constitution and § 115 involve complex issues of state law, justifying declination of any exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a contract claim against the United States when another federal statute assigns exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims.

Richland-Lexington Airport District v. Atlas Properties, Inc. · filed 1994-03-03(a)

Additionally, by its express provisions, this section only confers jurisdiction in the district court unless it or another federal statute provides otherwise. Here, § 1346(a)(2) is just such a federal statute because it provides that jurisdiction over WRS’s erossclaim rests exclusively with the Court of Federal Claims.

Section 1367 does not apply when an intervenor makes no pendent or ancillary claim.

Yorkshire v. United States Internal Revenue Service · filed 1994-06-08

Section 1367 codifies the doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction under the single heading of "supplemental jurisdiction.” In this case, S & P does not make a pendent or ancillary claim, and § 1367 is therefore inapplicable.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a federal claim when the state-law issue is not sufficiently complicated to warrant declining jurisdiction.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Chinatown Gift Shop · filed 1994-06-21(a), (c)(1)

The court is of the view that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Count XI is appropriate. The federal and state causes of action relate to the exact same set of facts. To litigate them in two separate actions would be an unwarranted waste of time and judicial resources. The legal issue is not sufficiently complicated to warrant declining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims unless an exception in subsection (b) or (c) applies.

McLaurin v. Prater · filed 1994-07-25(a)

We conclude that, in the absence of the circumstances described in subsections (b) and (c), Sec. 1367(a) requires the district court to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims McLaurin has raised in this case.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over distinct state claims against a defendant whose federal claim has been dismissed, while exercising it over a state claim against a defendant whose federal claim remains.

Gregory v. Southern New England Telephone Co. · filed 1994-08-19

The court need not delve into the merits of the claims against Galligan because in light of the fact that the Title VII claim against Galligan shall be dismissed and the allegations against Galligan are wholly distinct from the allegations against Gibson, the court declines to exercise its supplemental (pendent party) jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As the federal claim against Gibson will not be dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction is appropriately exercised with respect to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Gibson.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim created by local ordinance when the suit also alleges federal due process violations and a § 1983 cause of action.

Wayne v. Village of Sebring · filed 1994-09-29(a)

However, in the present case, in which Plaintiffs allege due process violations and a § 1983 cause of action, the federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction, formerly known as pendent jurisdiction, over the right of action created by local ordinance.

Section 1367 permits a court to hear a related state law claim against an individual when a federal claim remains against the employer, and allows the court to retain that claim when it raises no novel or complex state law issue and will not predominate.

Prescott v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance · filed 1995-02-08(a), (c)

Likewise, in this case, the state law claim asserted by Prescott against Meeks is properly before the court. It does not raise any novel or complex issues of state law and it will not predominate over the Title VII claim against Independent Life. The court finds it clearly to be in the interest of judicial economy, and without substantial prejudice to either of the defendants, for the claims against Independent Life and Meeks to be tried at the same time, rather than in separate actions in different courts. ... The state law claim against Meeks is a part of the same case or controversy as the plaintiff’s Title VII claim against. Independent Life. The court will therefore exercise its discretion and will hear the claim.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy and other relevant factors favor resolving the claims together.

Kern v. Kollsman · filed 1995-02-09(c)

Having granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim, the court is thereupon entitled, at its discretion, to either retain supplemental jurisdiction and continue to adjudicate the state-law claim or decline same, leaving the plaintiff to seek relief in state court. ... Upon consideration of the competing concerns and values, the court, in its discretion, finds and rules that a dismissal is not warranted and thus will proceed to resolve the entire matter in this unitary proceeding.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Craig Lyle Ltd. Partnership v. Land O'Lakes, Inc. · filed 1995-02-21(c)(2)

The test articulated in Gibbs has been codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... It is clear from Craig Lyle’s complaint that its state law claims predominate over the RCRA claim. ... Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice Craig Lyle’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claim survives dismissal.

Doe v. Methacton School District · filed 1995-03-16(a)

As a result of this holding, we have no need to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims against the Methacton Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Accordingly, we DENY the Methacton Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count IV.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain viable.

Tang v. Rhode Island, Department of Elderly Affairs · filed 1995-08-21

Defendants argue, finally, that the state law claims should be dismissed in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. However, this argument is premised upon the success of defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs federal claims. As several federal claims remain viable, this Court properly exercises pendant jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Lake Mohave Boat Owners Association v. National Park Service · filed 1995-10-18(a)

Rather, LMBOA's claim against SRI is that SRI illegally collected and retained excess rent in violation of state law. 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. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367.

Section 1367 gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming part of the same case or controversy unless it declines jurisdiction under an enumerated exception.

Aronoff v. Dwyer · filed 1996-02-02

The plain language of section 1367 provides that the district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case •or controversy unless the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise that jurisdiction under one of the enumerated exceptions.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim that forms part of the same Article III case or controversy as a federal claim, even if the counterclaim is permissive.

Channell v. Citicorp National Services · filed 1996-08-09(a)

Now the jurisdictional distinction between permissive and compulsory counterclaims was developed before Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to codify, and to an extent extend, the supplemental jurisdiction (formerly known as the pendent jurisdiction). Section 1367(a) says that district courts have supplemental jurisdiction "over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." ... 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.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim only when it is sufficiently related to a claim within original jurisdiction to form the same case or controversy.

Blue Dane Simmental Corp. v. American Simmental Ass'n · filed 1997-02-07(a)

Applying section 1367(a), and appreciating both the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation and the limited role of the federal courts in the resolution of state law disputes, I find and conclude the state law counterclaims are not sufficiently related to Plaintiffs’ jurisdietionally sufficient claim that all such claims can fairly be said to constitute the “same case or controversy.”

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal claim survives dismissal.

Hinesburg Sand & Gravel, Co. v. Chittenden Solid Waste District · filed 1997-04-03

See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, since the Court has denied CSWD’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s equal protection claim, it retains pendent jurisdiction over Count IV.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact without requiring each claim to independently support federal question jurisdiction.

Danfelt v. BD. COUNTY COM'RS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY · filed 1998-03-19

Such a holding would completely eviscerate the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, granting this Court supplemental jurisdiction over claims premised on a "common nucleus of operative fact”, ... by requiring that all the claims be independently within the federal question jurisdiction of this Court. The plain language of § 1367 does not contemplate this result.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party suit directly related to the original action.

King v. Byrne · filed 1998-07-29

There is no question that federal jurisdiction over Byrne’s third party suit against Rivas existed initially under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, inasmuch as this actions was directly related to King’s action against Byrne.

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in the same case or controversy as a claim within original jurisdiction, but it cannot overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Rivera v. Com. of Mass. · filed 1998-07-30

The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides this Court with jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as other claims, e.g., the § 1983 claims in this ease, over which original jurisdiction does exist. However, this statutory grant can neither permit refashioning of the predicates for state-based claims nor expand the jurisdictional boundaries set forth in Article III and the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from counsel’s conduct in a case already pending in the federal court.

Thomason v. Lehrer · filed 1998-08-21(a)

Because the circumstances set forth in Counts II through IV of the Second Amended Complaint arise out of the conduct of counsel in a case already pending in this Court, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II through IV of the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over qualifying claims but does not give bankruptcy courts that authority.

Simmons v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Simmons) · filed 1998-09-25

If the Debtor’s class claims do not fall within the referral to the bankruptcy court of core or related matters, the only other basis for jurisdiction would be the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... While district courts may have authority to hear supplemental claims relating to bankruptcy cases, the bankruptcy court does not have that authority.

Section 1367 does not require a plaintiff to cite it expressly when the complaint unambiguously requests supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Martell v. Estado Libre Asociado De Puerto Rico · filed 1999-03-29

Defendants argue that plaintiffs state law claims should be dismissed because he failed to specifically plead 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in invoking supplemental jurisdiction for his state law claims. This contention is without merit. Although plaintiff did not specifically plead the statute, he did unambiguously petition the' court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(a) extends federal supplemental jurisdiction to pendent claims.

Consumers Energy Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London · filed 1999-03-19(a)

Subsequent to Nolan, Congress overruled Finley by enacting the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which specifically extends federal jurisdiction to pendent claims.

Section 1367 permits ancillary jurisdiction over an intervenor whose interests closely relate to the pending suit.

Deutsche Financial Services Corp. v. Schwartz Homes, Inc. · filed 1999-05-27

Where an intervenor’s interests closely relate to the pending suit, a court may properly invoke ancillary jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a federal claim, and dismissal of the federal claim does not automatically end that jurisdiction.

Groce v. Eli Lilly & Company · filed 1999-09-30(a)

In this case, the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction to decide Mr. Groce’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). His state law claims arose out of the same set of facts — those regarding his employment with and termination from Eli Lilly — as his federal claim. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Mr. Groce’s state law claims under § 1367(a). Moreover, our case law makes clear that the district court did not automatically lose that jurisdiction once it granted summary judgment on Mr. Groce’s ADA claim.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decide whether a supplemental state tort claim was timely presented under the California Tort Claims Act when the parties dispute timeliness.

Ovando v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2000-03-28

Because plaintiffs raise the question of whether their claims are timely, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to adjudicate the issue in the present lawsuit.

Section 1367 codifies ancillary jurisdiction, whose reach remains governed by pre-codification common law principles.

Alexandria Resident Council, Incorporated v. Alexandria Redevelopment & Housing Authority · filed 2000-07-06

The common law concept of "ancillary jurisdiction" is now codified as an aspect of "supplementary jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court in Peacock made it clear, however, that, at least as is relevant to the present dispute, common law principles govern a court's ancillary jurisdiction, just as prior to codification.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity favor doing so.

Leonard v. DUTCHESS CTY. DEPT. OF HEALTH · filed 2000-07-11(c)

For reasons related to judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, this Court has determined that it is appropriate to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim sufficiently related to a federal claim.

Francorp, Inc. v. Siebert · filed 2001-11-13

Counterclaim II arises under state law, specifically the DTPA. Counterclaim I, however, is a Lanham Act claim over which we have federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The claims are sufficiently related that pendent jurisdiction is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a witness fee dispute when a federal statute authorizes enforcement of the fee, making the dispute more than a purely private contract matter.

Threlkeld v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEMS, INC. · filed 2002-01-24

Although this is a close question, I am persuaded that, because a federal statute authorizes me to ... enforce witness fees (§ 1821 says that witness “shall be paid”), this is not “purely a private contract dispute,” and therefore ancillary or supplemental jurisdiction over the witness fee dispute is appropriate.

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

Goldin v. Montana (In Re Pegasus Gold Corp.) · filed 2002-03-29(a)

Because § 1367 jurisdiction may be exercised by this court, the remaining issue is whether that jurisdiction may be properly applied in this case. ... Where a federal claim exists, supplemental jurisdiction may be applied to state law claims that arise out of a “common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that lack an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction when they accompany claims properly before the federal court.

Southpointe Villas Homeowners Ass'n v. Scottish Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 2002-04-11(a)

To the extent Plaintiff has claims that do not put federal funds at risk, such claims are still properly before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a claim that is completely distinct, independent, and collateral to the underlying claims.

Jackson v. Delaware River and Bay Authority · filed 2002-09-24(a)

Ancillary jurisdiction over the claim does not apply here because the right of access to a settlement agreement is completely distinct, independent, and collateral to the underlying workplace discrimination claims in the underlying action.

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over state disability-law claims accompanying federal ADA claims.

Molski v. Gleich · filed 2002-10-10(a)

Moreover, even if we considered the merits, Appellants' argument would fail. The District Court had supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims sufficiently related to a federal-law claim.

Linc Equipment Serv v. Signal Medical Serv · filed 2003-02-05(a)

Because the damage to the MRI likely occurred during transit, the state-law claims are sufficiently related to the federal-law theory that they come within the supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state disability law claims accompanying federal ADA claims.

Molski v. Gleich · filed 2003-02-06(a)

Appellants also contend that the District Court erred by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state disability law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Moreover, even if we considered the merits, Appellants’ argument would fail. The District Court had supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming the same case or controversy as a claim within original jurisdiction, including claims against additional parties, and allows the court to decline that jurisdiction for specified reasons.

Winkler v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2003-06-03(a), (c)

Generally, when a district court has original jurisdiction over some claims, 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,” including claims over additional parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined where a novel or complex issue of State law exists, where the claims substantially predominate over the claims granting original jurisdiction, where the court has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, or where other compelling reasons exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, all claims brought by Plaintiff are so closely related as to form part of the same case or controversy. None of the factors counseling judicial discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction exist here.

Section 1367 requires a district court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider prejudice to the litigants.

Correspondent Services Corp. v. First Equities Corp. · filed 2003-07-16

Under both Rule 41(a)(2) and § 1367, the district court should consider whether the litigants will be prejudiced by the voluntary dismissal or decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related federal statutory claim arising from the same controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Voelker, Daniel J. v. Porsche Cars North · filed 2003-11-03(a)

That court had federal question jurisdiction over the TILA and FCRA claims and, because both of those claims and the Magnuson-Moss claims arise from the same controversy, it also had the discretionary authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim arising from the same controversy as claims within the district court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Voelker v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. · filed 2003-12-12(a)

... because both of those claims and the Magnuson-Moss claims arise from the same controversy, it also had the discretionary authority to exercise sup- plemental jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims even if the original claim fails, when the counterclaims raise no novel or complex state-law issues and do not substantially predominate.

Progressive Northern Insurance v. Bachmann · filed 2004-04-19(c)

Even if plaintiff loses on its claim for declaratory judgment, this court still would exercise jurisdiction over defendant’s counterclaims because they do not raise any novel or complex issues of state law and they do not “substantially predominate” over plaintiffs claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after denying certification of accompanying federal claims.

In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation · filed 2004-05-12(a)

Having denied certification with respect to the end payor plaintiffs’ federal law claims, see Order of 11/21/03, at 2 (holding that these claims were inappropriate for injunctive relief), this Court nevertheless retains supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 extends supplemental jurisdiction to claims sufficiently related to a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Privateer Bay Management Corp. v. Heirs of Sewer · filed 2004-05-27(a)

The second and third claims (for reimbursement and partition) were sufficiently “related to claims in the action” to quiet title to fall within the scope of the District Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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 federal jurisdiction.

Briarpatch Limited, L.P., Gerard F. Rubin v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., Michael Medavoy, Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., Terence M · filed 2004-06-25(a)

All of plaintiffs’ claims against Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., Phoenix, and Medavoy unquestionably derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, because they all deal with the purported sale of “The Thin Red Line” to Phoenix. The district court therefore has power to hear the claims relating to breach of fiduciary duty even though these claims do not fall within the court’s copyright jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims challenging a state agency’s approval of an interconnection agreement when the court has jurisdiction over related federal-law claims.

Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc. · filed 2004-08-26

The court’s traditional and usual jurisdiction includes supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over claims that the state agency’s decision was contrary to state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them with prejudice when state governmental immunity bars them.

Lawrence, Darrick A. v. Kenosha County · filed 2004-12-02

The district court’s decision to retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and to dismiss Lawrence’s state law claims with prejudice was appropriate.

Section 1367 applies specifically to federal district courts.

Trek Leasing, Inc. v. United States · filed 2004-10-20

Although § 1367 only applies specifically to federal district courts, the concept of pendent jurisdiction, as enunciated in Gibbs, is more broadly applicable.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law inverse condemnation claim when the court has federal question jurisdiction over other federal claims.

McClure v. Biesenbach · filed 2005-04-12

In this context, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Texas inverse condemnation claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state and local claims when federal claims survive, avoiding duplicative litigation.

International Healthcare Exchange, Inc. v. Global Healthcare Exchange, LLC · filed 2007-01-11

Because Plaintiffs Title VII disparate treatment claims have survived this motion practice, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction of her state and local law disparate treatment claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to avoid the ... potential for duplicative litigation over the same conduct.

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims and parties lacking independent original jurisdiction when the claims form part of the same Article III case or controversy as a claim within original jurisdiction.

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation · filed 2007-09-17(a)

In passing the statute, Congress gave district courts jurisdiction over claims and parties over which the court lacked original jurisdiction under sections 1331 and 1332, so long as all of the claims arise out of the same case or controversy under Article III.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an attorney’s claim for fees arising from the underlying litigation and sought from its settlement proceeds.

Vance v. Gallagher · filed 2008-05-30(a)

The determination of attorney’s fees arising out of the litigation, and sought out of the proceeds of the settlement fund resulting from the same litigation, falls within the ambit of the court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law tariff and interconnection-agreement claims, and a federal court has discretion whether to exercise it.

Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Global NAPs Illinois, Inc. · filed 2008-12-22

Although both are within the supplemental jurisdiction ... conferred on the federal courts by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the exercise of that jurisdiction is, as the statute makes clear, discretionary; the exercise of diversity jurisdiction is not.

Section 1367(a) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when a federal claim remains in the case.

Cohn v. KeySpan Corp. · filed 2010-05-13(a)

Since plaintiffs federal Rehabilitation Act claim remains, this Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs NYSHRL claim.

When dismissal of the federal claim is reversed, the district court should reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claim.

Shames v. CALIFORNIA TRAVEL AND TOURISM COM'N · filed 2010-11-24

Because we reverse the dismissal of the federal claim against the CTTC, we remand for the court to reconsider whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion of this state law claim.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims arising from the same series of events as claims within its original jurisdiction, even if the remaining claims are not independently preempted by federal law.

Kitzmann v. Local 619-M Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 2011-03-21(a)

All of the remaining claims, which arose out of the same series of events—the affiliation election and fallout—fell within the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction, even if they were not preempted.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a substantial federal claim.

Liebman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2012-02-23(a)

The district court was also entitled to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Liebmans’ state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 preserves supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims remain viable.

Kiwanuka v. Bakilana · filed 2012-02-24

However, for the reasons articulated above, Ms. Kiwanuka’s federal claims remain viable and this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction remains intact pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

In re: Edra D. Blixseth · filed 2012-08-09(a)

Finally, to the extent WCP contends that its third-party contract-based claims against the Atigeo Parties fall outside the bankruptcy court’s original jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over those claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the applicable law is clear and the record is developed.

Konah v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-01-03(c)

The Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction at this juncture, given the clarity of the applicable law and the developed nature of the record.

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction for other claims lacking an independent basis for federal jurisdiction; it is unnecessary when original admiralty jurisdiction covers the entire claim.

Mala v. Crown Bay Marina · filed 2013-01-07(a)

And even if he was referring to supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367, such jurisdiction exists only when there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (stating that supplemental jurisdiction is limited to ―other claims‖ over which district courts do not have ―original jurisdiction‖). Here, the District Court had admiralty jurisdiction over all parts of Mala‘s claim, as both parties acknowledge. The court did not need supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an entire constitutional case whose claims share a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

We need not decide whether § 1333 provides jurisdiction over this particular stretch of an oil rig’s journey because a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the entire constitutional case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) supports supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claim survives dismissal and the challenger gives no reason its requirements are unmet.

Presley v. Graham · filed 2013-03-28(a)

The Complaint invokes this court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and the City fails to explain why § 1367(a)’s requirements are not met. Because the City presents no viable basis for dismissal of the state law claims, its motion to dismiss is due to be denied.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims forming part of the same Article III case or controversy as surviving federal claims, even when the state claims are against other defendants.

Thomas v. Varano · filed 2013-06-04(a)

The District Court’s supplemental jurisdiction extends to state law claims forming part of the same Article III case or controversy as Thomas’s surviving federal claims, even if those state law claims were brought against defendants other than McCarty or Dr. Stanish.

Section 1367 does not overcome sovereign immunity or create a private right of action under the Clean Water Act.

Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation v. Federal Highway Administration · filed 2013-07-17

The general supplemental jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, also does not cure CART’s jurisdictional deficiencies, as that provision does nothing to overcome Defendants' sovereign immunity or ere-ate a private right of action to sue under the CWA.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims in a removed case when complete preemption supplies original federal jurisdiction.

Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway Co. · filed 2013-09-18(a)

Since the ICCTA completely preempts plaintiffs’ claims, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over settlement agreements incorporated into a federal consent decree when the agreements are inextricably linked to the decree.

United States v. South Jersey Clothing Co. · filed 2013-09-30(a)

The Court therefore had supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the incorporated settlement agreements between GSC, SJCC and their insurers since these settlement agreements were inextricably linked to the Consent Decree.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims, but a request for attorney fees is an element of damages rather than an independent claim.

Klein v. City of Laguna Beach · filed 2013-11-19(a)

Regardless of whether doing so is appropriate for California courts as a matter of California law, federal courts may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “claims,” ... and attorneys' fees such as those sought here are not an independent claim, but an element of damages.

When a federal claim remains after appeal, the district court must reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

Peterson v. Officer Michael Kopp · filed 2014-06-11(c)

As there remains a federal claim, we also vacate the dismissal of Peterson’s state law claims ... and remand to the district court to once again decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) & (c).

Section 1367 governs ancillary jurisdiction over claims in a pending federal case but leaves jurisdiction over technically separate related proceedings to case law.

United States v. McKnight · filed 2014-07-11

Although § 1367 governs ancillary jurisdiction over claims asserted in a case over which the district court has federal subject matter jurisdiction, it does not affect common law ancillary jurisdiction “over related proceedings that are technically separate from the initial case that invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction,” which remains governed by case law.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as a federal claim when the grounds for declining jurisdiction in subsection (c) are absent.

Kovach v. Service Personnel & Employees of the Dairy Industry, Local Union No. 205 · filed 2014-09-30(c)

The Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the assault claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because it and the federal LMRDA claim arise from a "common nucleus of operative fact,” see United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), it does not raise a novel or complex issue of state law or substantially predominate over the LMRDA claim, the Court has not dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and no exceptional circumstances present any other compelling reasons for this Court to decline jurisdiction.

Section 1367 governs ancillary jurisdiction over claims in a federal case but leaves related proceedings separate from that case to common-law ancillary jurisdiction.

United States v. Allen · filed 2014-10-28

Although § 1367 governs ancillary jurisdiction over claims asserted in a case over which the district court has federal subject matter jurisdiction, it does not affect common law ancillary jurisdiction “over related proceedings that are technically separate from the initial case that invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction,” which remains governed by case law.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over claims substantially related to claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bank of North Carolina v. Bouscaren · filed 2014-12-09(a)

Because Bouscaren’s claims against Coastal and Kindle are substantially related to her original claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim when a federal claim remains and no other ground for declining jurisdiction is shown.

Holy Ghost Revival Ministries v. City of Marysville · filed 2015-04-07(c)

Here, the court has not dismissed all federal claims: Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claim remains. Absent a showing that one of the other three criteria apply, the court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Washington Constitution claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims deeply entwined with litigation within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

World Trade Center Properties LLC v. QBE International Insurance · filed 2015-09-17(a)

Substantially for the reasons given by the district court, we agree that it had supplemental jurisdiction over WTCP’s claims, which are “deeply entwined with much of the September 11 litigation” over which the district court was given jurisdiction by the Airline Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001, 49 U.S.C. § 40101. In re Sept. 11 Litig., 906 F. Supp. 2d 295, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants.

Dommel Properties, LLC v. Jonestown Bank · filed 2016-02-22

The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the instant matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Specifically, the court retains its jurisdiction over the Pommels’ state-law claims “based on considerations of judicial economy, convenience^] and fairness to the litigants.”

Section 1367(a) authorizes supplemental jurisdiction only in district courts, not in the Court of Federal Claims.

Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v. United States · filed 2016-09-30(a)

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) applies only to district courts: ... The United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”) is not a district court.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction to decide whether a plaintiff complied with notice requirements for a related state-law claim.

Tyler v. Wick · filed 2017-03-08(a)

Tyler replies that the district court should have remanded to state court the question whether he complied with the notice-of-claim requirement of Wis. Stat. § 51.61. But the district court had supplemental jurisdiction to address whether he complied with the state law’s notice requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Free & Fair Election Fund v. Missouri Ethics Commission · filed 2017-05-17(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction “over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain related state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support doing so.

Estate of Ware Ex Rel. Boyer v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania · filed 2017-09-18

Per 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the District Court had authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. ... As discussed above, the parties had already engaged in significant litigation before the District Court, so values of economy, convenience, and fairness all supported its retention of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when federal claims remain pending and judicial economy, fairness, and convenience favor retaining it.

Odhuno v. Reed's Cove Health & Rehab., LLC · filed 2018-12-14(c)

Therefore, it is in the interest of judicial economy, fairness, and convenience for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the tort claim, and the Court will continue to do so.

Section 1367 does not allow a plaintiff to establish supplemental jurisdiction over an original claim by amending the complaint to add new federal claims when jurisdiction was lacking over the original claim.

Tex. Health Mgmt. LLC v. Healthspring Life & Health Ins. Co. · filed 2019-03-29

However, THM cannot use an amended complaint to assert new federal claims in order to establish retroactive supplemental jurisdiction over its original claim.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a separate removed action when no federal matter remains pending for that action to supplement.

NRZ REO Inventory Corp. v. Lindberg · filed 2019-05-28

Without any pending matter this case would supplement, supplemental jurisdiction is unavailable.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on facts unrelated to a federal claim.

Wallis v. Boeing Company, The · filed 2019-10-07(a)

Furthermore, even if Plaintiff ultimately amended his complaint to bring a claim under the FLSA, the Court would still lack subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims for wrongful termination and civil conspiracy, as the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction would be improper as Plaintiff's first two causes of action are based on unrelated facts, namely reports of alleged safety violations and a termination rather than unpaid wages, and those claims raise complex policy issues grounded in state law.

Section 1367(c) permits retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness strongly favor retention.

Quinones v. Unitedhealth Group Inc. · filed 2019-10-30(c)

Supplemental briefing was requested from the parties to determine whether we still retained subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). After reviewing the parties’ briefs, we hold that we do. The benefits to “judicial economy, convenience, [and] fairness” to the parties strongly support the retention of supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367 does not apply to an action asserting only federal question claims and no additional claims.

(PC) Lipsey v. Kalil · filed 2020-02-05(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 pertains to the Court’s ability to assert supplemental jurisdiction over other claims in actions of which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Here, Plaintiff only purports to assert federal question claims and no other claims;2 therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is inapplicable to this action.

A court may relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when an amended complaint drops the federal claims on which that jurisdiction depended.

Norman v. NIPSCO · filed 2020-02-07

The Court relinquishes jurisdiction over any state law claims that the Court may have had under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 based on the claims alleged in the original Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1367(a) permits retention of supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when federal claims survive dismissal.

Knight v. County of Cayuga · filed 2020-02-10(a)

This Court still maintains supplemental jurisdiction over Knight's state law assault and battery and false imprisonment claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) ("[F]ederal courts have supplemental jurisdiction to hear state law claims that are so related to federal question claims brought in the same action as to form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims have survived, it will not dismiss plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367 permits retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal procedural due-process claim survives a motion to dismiss.

Jackson v. St. Charles Parish Housing Authority Board of Commissioners · filed 2020-02-21

As previously explained, because Jackson’s federal procedural due-process claim, insofar as it alleges that she was not afforded adequate pre-deprivation process, survives this motion, the Court retains supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims should be maintained when federal claims survive dismissal and the request to decline jurisdiction rests entirely on dismissal of all federal claims.

Beh v. Community Care Companions Inc · filed 2020-04-20(a)

The CCC Defendants’ argument for declining supplemental jurisdiction rests entirely on the premise that all federal claims would be dismissed. If Judge Sinatra agrees that the federal claims should remain in place through discovery then supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims should be maintained.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to hear a related state-law claim even if that claim ordinarily would be brought in state court.

ACADEMY HILL, INC. v. CITY OF LAMBERTVILLE · filed 2020-07-06(a)

That Plaintiffs would have regularly brought this claim in state court does not render this federal forum inappropriate.

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

The Makeup Blowout Sale Group, Inc. v. All That Glowz, Inc. · filed 2020-09-14(a)

Where a matter involves a mix of federal and state law issues arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact, as here, district courts are endowed with supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only over claims within a civil action over which the district court has original jurisdiction; related claims in a separate action do not support removal.

Howell v. Garden of Eden · filed 2020-10-01(a)

Section 1367 does not provide for removal based on claims ... related to a separate action.

Section 1367(a) permits jurisdiction over claims related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction as part of the same Article III case or controversy; the court found it supplied no jurisdictional basis for the malpractice claim.

Nivens v. Henslee · filed 2020-10-13(a)

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) grants district courts “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the courts’] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” These grounds do not apply here.

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over a claim only when the court has original jurisdiction over another claim in the same case or controversy.

Tailored Fund CAP LLC v. RWDY, Inc. · filed 2020-10-29(a)

Because the Court has original jurisdiction over each of plaintiff's claims, it cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because supplemental jurisdiction by definition only exists in the absence of original jurisdiction for some claims but it does for others in the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when they arise from the same course of conduct as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

MEDWELL, LLC v. CIGNA CORPORATION · filed 2020-12-04(a)

This is so because I may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims since Cigna is allegedly withholding payment on those claims and the preempted claims as part of the same course of conduct.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court with federal question jurisdiction to hear related state law claims, including claims presented after the federal claims are resolved.

HARR, LLC v. Town of Northfield · filed 2020-12-30(a)

The federal court ruled on the two federal claims that invoked its federal question jurisdiction, and then it exercised supplemental jurisdiction to address the only other well-pleaded claim presented: the state law takings claim. If any other state law claim had been.presented, it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over that claim as well.

Section 1367(a) requires dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Parks v. Taylor · filed 2021-02-23(a)

Further, for the reasons stated by Judge Green, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim that lacks an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Navarre v. Prosper Operators, Inc. · filed 2021-03-24(a)

Thus, a federal court hearing this matter could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas Petroleum claim even though it fails to satisfy an independent basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims when constitutional claims remain.

Coley v. Bowser · filed 2021-04-22(c)

Because some of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims remain, the Court will not dismiss any of Plaintiff’s common law claims for want of supplemental jurisdiction, a matter left to this Court’s discretion.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as federal claims even when state law assigns jurisdiction over that claim to a state court.

Snell v. Neville · filed 2021-05-25(a)

The DOC defendants contradict themselves about whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Snell's state law claim. At first, their brief states that "[t]he district court had supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's [art.] 114 claim as it arose from the same set of facts as plaintiff’s federal claims. See[] 28 U.S.C. § 1367." Then, they argue Massachusetts "G.L. c. 93, § 103, which affords a right of action to adjudicate claims under [art.] 114, vests exclusive jurisdiction in the superior court, and therefore, Snell's claims must be dismissed." The DOC defendants had it right the first time.

Section 1367 permits a court to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain in the case.

Ochoa v. Lopez · filed 2021-09-28(a)

Because the Court is not dismissing all of Ochoa’s federal claims, this is a moot point and the Court maintains supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VIII, IX, and X.

Section 1367(a) neither creates subject matter jurisdiction where none otherwise exists nor waives sovereign immunity.

Green-Page v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2021-10-18(a)

Section 1367(a) does not create subject matter jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist. ... Section 1367(a) also does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

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

(PC) Israel v. McLelland · filed 2022-06-30(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 a court to retain supplemental state-law negligence claims when federal claims survive and judicial economy favors resolving the claims together.

Ravert v. Monroe County · filed 2022-09-30

Having concluded that at least three Constitutional deliberate indifference claims survive (against the Medical Director, Dr. Wloczewski, and PrimeCare) the supplemental state law negligence claims will also remain. These claims belong in this court at this stage of the litigation even without the Constitutional claims based on judicial economy, allowing a prompt and efficient disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Jenkins v. Obion County Sheriff's Department · filed 2022-10-20(a)

Because most of Plaintiff’s federal claims remain pending, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to federal claims; it does not determine whether separate federal claims may be joined.

Tatum v. Lucas · filed 2022-11-10(a)

He says the claims were properly joined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But § 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law claims that are related to federal claims. The question here is whether Tatum’s remaining federal claims were related to each other.

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

(PC) Garland v. Jones · filed 2022-12-12(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(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when some federal claims survive dismissal.

Navarro v. City of Aurora, Illinois · filed 2022-12-27(c)

Defendants do not argue for dismissal of the state law claims on the merits; rather, they contend that the court should relinquish jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) after dismissing the § 1983 claims. Doc. 27 at 6. Because the court does not dismiss all of Navarro’s § 1983 claims, it declines to relinquish jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Doe v. Purdue University · filed 2023-02-14(a)

John does not explain why the Court would have jurisdiction over his claim, but not Defendants’ counterclaim. The counterclaim will not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (the court retains supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims [within] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy”).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction; the original federal claims themselves are outside its supplemental jurisdiction.

THE HANSEN FOUNDATION, INC. v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY · filed 2023-03-21(a)

By definition, this Court does not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 1, 2 and 3.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims filed in a separate action that have their own independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

CCAPS, LLC v. HD and Associates, LLC · filed 2023-03-27(a)

Plaintiff’s claims do not fall within this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because they have their own independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a sufficiently substantial federal claim and the state-law claim share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc. · filed 2023-04-07(a)

As a preliminary matter, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the abuse of process counterclaim. Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims exists when a federal claim is sufficiently substantial to confer federal jurisdiction, and there is “a common nucleus of operative fact between the state and federal claims.” Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim accompanying an ADA claim.

Truong v. RH-Lambert Brea Associates, L.P. · filed 2023-04-13(a)

The court further notes that it possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law assault and battery and negligence claims based on the same conduct as federal civil rights claims.

Hall v. Stefonek · filed 2023-06-08(a)

The court will allow the plaintiff to proceed on a supplemental state law claim of assault and battery based on his excessive force allegations. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

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

Sifuentes v. Google Inc. · filed 2023-06-26(a)

Two claims remain in this case: Sifuentes’s newly added claim under 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 and his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress – both based on the telephone bill dispute. ... Nonetheless, the Court finds that federal question jurisdiction is apparent from the face of the Amended Complaint because Sifuentes asserts a colorable claim under federal law, namely, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. Furthermore, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims when the court lacks federal jurisdiction over the other claims.

Cruz v. La Clinica Del Pueblo De Rio Arriba · filed 2023-07-11

(C) Plaintiff's state law tort claims against Defendant Brace do not satisfy the requirements for supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367), federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331), or diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332).

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

Teamsters Local Union No. 72t v. De La Torre Funeral Home & Cremation Services, Inc. · filed 2023-07-20(a)

Thus, the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides for subject matter jurisdiction over non-federal claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.”

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

Harrell v. California State University · filed 2023-08-09(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in the complaint, which arise out of the same facts as the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim closely related to an ADA claim.

Villalobos v. Lancaster Liquor Inc · filed 2023-09-18(a)

Because Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the Court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 367(a).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Silver Fern Chemical Inc v. Lyons · filed 2023-12-19(c)

As discussed above, the Court will allow Plaintiff to replead its CFAA claim and will not dismiss Plaintiff’s trade secrets claims. Therefore, the Court will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after considering its factors and to revisit that choice if the federal claims are later resolved.

Clunn v. Buis · filed 2023-12-19(c)

Considering the factors set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court chooses to continue to exercise jurisdiction at this time. This issue may be revisited, however, should the federal claims in this case be resolved at some point in the future.

Section 1367(c) leaves the court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Cullen v. Jones · filed 2024-01-29(c)

Here, because there continue to be pending federal claims against Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

Section 1367(a) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim when another federal statute expressly assigns jurisdiction over that claim to a different court and deprives the district court of jurisdiction.

O'Neill v. United States Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2024-01-29(a)

As for supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides that courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims except “as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute.” Here, as discussed above, federal statutes have expressly conferred jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim on a particular court, the Court of Federal Claims, and deprived this Court of jurisdiction to consider such claims. The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is barred.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in an amended complaint when they remain part of the same civil action as an earlier complaint containing federal claims.

Conway v. City of Palm Desert · filed 2024-06-10(a)

We are satisfied that the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the Fifth Amended Complaint because they are part of the same “civil action” as the Fourth Amended Complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Fifth Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim closely related to a federal ADA claim.

Vera v. Adobe Cantina, Inc. · filed 2024-06-20(a)

Because Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the Court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state-law claims to the district court’s discretion; the court may retain them when federal claims remain.

May 929149 v. Minnick · filed 2024-07-05(c)

Here, because Plaintiff continues to have federal claims against Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a cognizable federal claim and a related state law claim arising from the same case or controversy for supplemental jurisdiction.

(PC) Dailey v. Ellis · filed 2024-07-08(a)

Thus, in order for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim, plaintiff must allege a cognizable federal claim, and the putative state law claim must arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over foreign-law claims accompanying a claim within the district court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

Superama Corporation, Inc. v. Tokyo Broadcasting System Television, Inc. · filed 2024-08-01(a)

Because the district court had federal question jurisdiction over Superama’s DMCA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the Japanese law copyright claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when related federal claims remain pending.

Carter 812293 v. Edlinger · filed 2024-08-20(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s personal capacity First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Edlinger remain pending. The Court, therefore, will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Nicholson 462661 v. Unknown Party · filed 2024-10-04(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s personal capacity Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants remain pending. The Court, therefore, will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims alleging violations of MDOC policy.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over another claim and the state-law claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Fuller v. Patel · filed 2024-10-16(a)

When a plaintiff alleges violations of state statutory or common law in federal court, the federal court may hear and decide those state-law claims only if the plaintiff also has alleged claims over which the federal court has diversity or federal question jurisdiction and the state-law claims are “so related” to the diversity or federal question claims that “they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law malpractice claim when the complaint supplies no basis for exercising it alongside the federal claim.

Pierce v. Luking · filed 2024-11-07(a)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s statement of claim does not include any allegations against Defendant Shima or the Unknown Carle Doctor and fails to suggest any unconstitutional conduct on their part. As such, there is no basis for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law malpractice claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Count 2 will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) requires a cognizable federal claim and a state law claim arising from the same case or controversy for a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

(PC) Johnson v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Office · filed 2025-01-10(a)

Thus, in order for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim, plaintiff must allege a cognizable federal claim, and the putative state law claim must arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claim.

Section 1367(c) gives courts discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when grounds for declining it do not warrant dismissal.

Louis v. The City of New York · filed 2025-01-13(c)

Although the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under certain circumstances pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to do so here.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims sufficiently related to the federal claims.

The Estate of Nicholas Ellingson v. City of Auburn · filed 2025-02-03(a)

The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because such claims are sufficiently related to Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when federal claims against the same defendant remain pending.

Walker 720647 v. Hardenberg · filed 2025-03-04(c)

Here, because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendant Nesbitt, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim against Defendant Nesbitt.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to retain related state and local law claims alongside a live federal claim.

Martinez v. Pure Green NYC Wholesale Corp. · filed 2025-03-30(a)

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has standing to pursue his ADA claims and his case is not moot, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over his claims under state and city law.

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

Nashoanak v. Angol · filed 2025-04-14(a)

However, a federal court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as the federal clams, including claims that involve the joinder of additional parties.

Section 1367 permits state-law claims to proceed as supplemental claims when a well-pleaded federal claim provides a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Watson v. Ramere · filed 2025-04-30

In the Court’s view, any such claims arise under state law—e.g., the infliction of emotional distress—and would only be properly before the Court as supplemental to a well-pleaded federal claim (or if diversity jurisdiction applied).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain a supplemental state-law claim when a federal claim remains pending.

Hutchins 438751 v. Brown · filed 2025-05-19(c)

Here, because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Brown, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim for “defamation of character by libel” against Defendant Brown.

Section 1367 concerns supplemental jurisdiction and does not provide a basis for bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Alomari v. South Jefferson Apartments, LLC · filed 2025-06-23

South Jefferson clearly erred in citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367, since that statute concerns supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are subject to dismissal.

Campbell v. Michael Buongiorne Construction Ink · filed 2025-06-27(a)

And there currently is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction because Campbell’s federal claims are subject to dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when a federal statute expressly excludes federal jurisdiction over the claim.

SHADLE v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, et al. · filed 2025-11-26(a)

Notably, the interpretation is that Congress has affirmatively stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over USERRA claims, rendering supplemental jurisdiction inappropriate.