28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over claims only if the court has original jurisdiction over at least one of the plaintiff’s claims.

Keene Corporation v. Fiorelli · filed 1993-12-01(a)

Likewise, the court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims unless the court has "original jurisdiction" over at least one of the plaintiff's claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim in the action.

Kreatsoulas v. Freights of the Levant Pride & the Levant Fortune · filed 1993-12-02(a)

Since there is no original jurisdiction over the assignment contract, there exists no federal claim on which to base supplemental jurisdiction over the contract of personal guaranty.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same set of facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Miller v. Penobscot Bay Medical Associates · filed 1993-11-01(a)

Given that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for interference with contractual relations, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims for defamation and third-party beneficiary contract, both of which arise out of the same set of facts.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction only when the court already has federal jurisdiction.

Oldham v. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Tennessee, Inc. · filed 1994-03-30(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction, however, only exists where federal jurisdiction is already present. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). There being no federal jurisdiction here, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim.

Section 1367(a) requires original federal jurisdiction before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Miller v. Coyhis · filed 1995-01-30(a)

Because I have determined that federal subject matter jurisdiction is absent, I must also conclude that this court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law wrongful termination and assault and battery claims.

Section 1367 requires a related claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction before it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Buemi v. Lewis · filed 1995-04-04(a)

Subject matter jurisdiction over these claims was based on the existence of a related federal claim, however, see Williams v. City of River Rouge, 909 F.2d 151, 157 (6th Cir.1990), and because Mr. Buemi failed to state a federal claim over which the district court had jurisdiction, the dismissal of the supplemental state claims was proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) presupposes that the court first acquired supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims through original jurisdiction over related federal claims.

Avitts v. Amoco Production · filed 1995-05-03(c)(3)

This provision is plainly inapplicable because, by its terms, it presupposes that the district court obtained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims via original jurisdiction over federal claims arising from the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(c)(3) presupposes that the court first obtained original jurisdiction over a federal claim arising from the same case or controversy as the state law claims.

Avitts v. Amoco Production · filed 1995-05-23(c)(3)

This provision is plainly inapplicable because, by its terms, it presupposes that the district court obtained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims via original jurisdiction over federal claims arising from the same case or controversy.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when a claim already supplies a basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Ashley v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. · filed 1996-02-26(a)

By definition Section 1367 can come into play only after a case becomes properly lodged in federal court — in this instance, only if federal jurisdiction over Ashley’s individual claim against defendants already exists, so that some other class member with a claim of less than the jurisdictional amount could arguably piggyback onto the Ashley claim via supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when a claim in the case already has an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

In Re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation · filed 1996-03-06(a)

By definition Section 1367 can come into play only after a case becomes properly lodged in federal court — in this instance, only if federal jurisdiction over Ashley's individual claim against defendants already exists, so that some other class member with a claim of less than the jurisdictional amount could arguably piggyback onto the Ashley claim via supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim in the case.

Harris v. Iorio · filed 1996-04-19(a)

This Court, however, has no original jurisdiction in this case and, therefore, cannot assert supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when an underlying claim independently qualifies for federal jurisdiction.

Feedstuffs Processing Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. · filed 1996-05-07(a)

But what those cases do not say (and what no other case says) is that supplemental jurisdiction can — like the Indian rope trick — attach itself to nothing.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over a principal claim.

Randolph v. Budget Rent-A-Car · filed 1996-09-23

However, when original jurisdiction does not exist for the principal claim, federal courts may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining pendent claims. Simply put, failure of original jurisdiction precludes application of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires a proper basis for original federal jurisdiction before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Tatum v. Everhart · filed 1997-02-03(a)

Because the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claims, the court has no authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state-law claims against UWA.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim in the action.

Corvinus v. Petrolane, Inc. · filed 1997-04-28(a)

This provision merely permits the court to entertain claims that are related to claims over which the court already has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over at least one claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

LeBlanc v. Cleveland · filed 1997-10-01(a)

Without original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the complaint, there can be no exercise of supplemental jurisdiction— there is nothing to “supplement.”

Section 1367 requires an underlying federal claim sufficient to confer original subject matter jurisdiction before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Edmonds v. Clarkson · filed 1998-03-11(a)

In exercising supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, however, the federal claim must first have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the civil action.

Salter v. Mellon Mortgage Company, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Mellon National Bank, and Cook County Sheriff's D · filed 1998-08-12(a)

Moreover, a court otherwise without jurisdiction cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367 applies only to claims linked to a claim within the federal courts’ statutorily granted original jurisdiction; jurisdiction under § 1442(a) exists only on removal.

Gilberg v. Stepan Co. · filed 1998-08-20(a)

..., but section 1367 applies only to claims which fall within the "original" jurisdiction statutorily granted to the federal courts by Congress. Congress’ grant of jurisdiction under section 1442(a) is not original in the statutory sense and can only be exercised in removal cases.

Section 1367(a) requires the court to have or have had jurisdiction over another closely related claim before supplemental jurisdiction can attach.

In Re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Products Liability Litigation · filed 1998-08-27(a)

In order for “supplemental” jurisdiction to attach, the court must already have (or have had) jurisdiction of another closely related claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the district court has original subject matter jurisdiction over a claim in the action.

State of NJ v. City of Wildwood · filed 1998-10-06(a)

Simply put, before this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it must conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance.

Section 1367(a) requires an underlying claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction before it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Holloway v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. · filed 1998-12-11(a)

However, she enjoys no private right of action under the Code. Lacking original jurisdiction, this Court would be unable to invoke any supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the action also includes a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Toledo Fair Housing Center v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies · filed 1999-06-21(a)

In order to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over purely state law claims, however, there must be “claims in the action within such original jurisdiction,” that is, plaintiffs must have asserted, in addition to their state law claims, claims over which a federal district court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits consideration of supplemental jurisdiction over other class members’ claims only after at least one plaintiff is shown to satisfy the diversity amount in controversy.

Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc. · filed 2000-06-20(a)

Briefly, § 1367(a) grants district courts that have original jurisdiction over an action the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are part of the same case and controversy. ... Akzo has never shown that even one of the plaintiffs met the $50,000 jurisdictional requirement at the time the suit was brought, and, absent such a threshold showing, no issue of supplemental jurisdiction is currently presented.

Section 1367(a) requires an underlying claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction before supplemental jurisdiction can extend to related claims.

Charland v. Little Six, Inc. · filed 2000-08-31(a)

The Court did not have supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Three and Four for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs Complaint did not contain allegations invoking jurisdiction under that statute. Second, there must be an underlying claim over which the Court does have original jurisdiction before supplemental jurisdiction may be found. There was not such a claim in the Complaint.

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the related federal claim.

Price, Gordon E. v. United States · filed 2000-09-26(a)

As a consequence, the court necessarily also lacked supple- mental jurisdiction over Price's state law claim against North- east.

Section 1367 does not independently confer federal jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction requires a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Ge v. Peng · filed 2000-11-15

The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not provide an independent source of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when the district court has original jurisdiction, but state claims must be dismissed when subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims is absent.

Alino v. Aerovias De Mexico, S.A., De C.V. · filed 2000-11-17(a)

Because the Court has determined that the Plaintiffs federal cause of action must be dismissed, the merits of the state law claim for outrageous conduct need not be reached and the claim shall be dismissed without prejudice. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides that, in any action in which the district courts “have original jurisdiction,” they may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to the federal claim. However, once the district court determines that subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs federal claims does not exist, the court must dismiss the plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chemical Co. · filed 2001-02-16(a)

Too, because the court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claim(s), the court has no (and thus declines to exercise) supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law tortious interference claim (Count III).

Section 1367 requires original federal jurisdiction to support supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Ferguson v. Oklahoma Secretary of State · filed 2001-04-03

Supplemental jurisdiction, however, can no longer be sustained because of the lack of original federal jurisdiction over the ADA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over the claim to which they are attached; a jurisdictional lack of standing on that claim forecloses supplemental jurisdiction.

Rifkin, Robert F. v. Bear Stearns & Co · filed 2001-04-19(a)

The district court is empowered to take supplemental jurisdiction over state claims only if the court first has "original jurisdiction" of the claim to which the state claims are attached. See 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367(a). Since we have concluded that the lack of standing over the Advisers Act claim was jurisdictional in nature, the district court also had no subject matter jurisdiction over the Article XX claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the district court has original jurisdiction over an underlying claim; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction requires dismissal of supplemental claims.

Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear · filed 2001-06-13(a)

If the district court dismisses all federal claims on the merits, it has discretion under § 1367(c) to adjudicate the remaining claims; if the court dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it has no discretion and must dismiss all claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction to anchor supplemental jurisdiction.

Abraham v. Norcal Waste Systems Inc. · filed 2001-09-07(a)

And without a federal question, there was no anchor for the assertion of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over a federal claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims.

Donahue v. Bill Page Toyota, Inc. · filed 2001-10-05(a)

The six pendent state claims, cognizable only pursuant to the grant of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1867, would also be subject to dismissal without prejudice, for if there is no original jurisdiction, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only in civil actions within a district court’s original jurisdiction, not when the court exercises appellate jurisdiction.

New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Conversent Communications of Rhode Island, L.L.C. · filed 2001-11-08(a)

Here, the parties are invoking the narrow federal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, and the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 requires original jurisdiction over a claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Klempner v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance · filed 2001-12-17(a)

Because Northwestern cannot aggregate the putative class plaintiffs’ claims in order to meet the jurisdictional amount, at least one plaintiff must have a claim for greater than $75,000 (and have diverse citizenship from the defendant) in order to establish original federal jurisdiction. This must be confirmed before the issue of supplemental jurisdiction even arises.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the action.

Gambino v. Rubenfeld · filed 2002-01-05(a)

Because this Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action, at this early stage of the litigation it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in regard to any action under the New York Judiciary Law, if any such action exists.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal question jurisdiction was not invoked below and the asserted federal claim was not pursued.

Focus Golf System, Inc. v. Emery · filed 2002-01-02

But federal question jurisdiction was not invoked below, and the RICO claim was not pursued. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 728 (1966). Accordingly, we reject § 1367 as a basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over related claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Equitas Reinsurance Ltd. · filed 2002-03-01(a)

Having concluded that it is without jurisdiction to hear the federal question before it, i.e., the petition to compel arbitration, the court is without supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action, as set forth in count two for breach of contract, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, ... The case is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Marsaw v. Trailblazer Health Enterprises, L.L.C. · filed 2002-03-28(a)

In any case, because the Court has already found subject matter jurisdiction to be lacking over Plaintiffs’ federal question claims, it cannot properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim is dismissed for lack of standing and the court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction.

Scott v. Pasadena Unified School District · filed 2002-09-04(a)

By finding that Scott did not have standing to assert her federal equal protection claim, we have determined that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, we have no discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Scott’s state law claims.

Section 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction only where the court has original jurisdiction; it does not independently supply that jurisdiction.

United States v. Austin Two Tracts, L.P. · filed 2002-10-22

Section 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction on this Court under certain circumstances, which do not exist here. Section 1367 applies only where the Court has original jurisdiction. As discussed above, this Court does not have original jurisdiction over Austin’s counterclaim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when a federal RICO claim fails for lack of statutory standing, because that failure does not eliminate original jurisdiction.

Lerner v. Fleet Bank · filed 2003-01-22(a)

Because RICO standing is not a constitutional prerequisite to jurisdiction and the determination that proximate causation is lacking is sufficiently intertwined with the merits of the RICO claim, however, we find that dismissal for failure to plead proximate causation between the alleged RICO violation and plaintiffs' injuries does not divest the district court of original jurisdiction and, therefore, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be permissible pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Neel v. Pippy · filed 2003-03-06(a)

Because the Court has no jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ alleged federal claims, their state claims are not “supplementary” to any federal “claims in the action within [the district court’s] original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when lack of standing defeats original jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Storino v. Point Pleasant Beach · filed 2003-03-18(a)

But because the Storinos lack standing, the District Court lacked original jurisdiction over the federal claim, and it therefore could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims only when the district court has original jurisdiction over a related federal cause of action.

Critney v. National City Ford, Inc. · filed 2003-04-03(a)

A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims only if it possesses original jurisdiction over a related federal cause of action.

Section 1367 cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the purported federal claims are outside the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Dick v. Towles · filed 2003-06-19(a)

What Mr. Dick seems to suggest by citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is that his newly asserted claim of a “due process” violation in the state litigation triggered federal question jurisdiction that in turn provides supplemental jurisdiction over his contract claims. ... Accordingly, Mr. Dick’s new claims are not properly in federal court, and so they cannot serve as a hook to bring along his contract claims.

Section 1367 does not provide an independent basis for removal when no claim in the removed action falls within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Sonoma Falls Developers, LLC v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc. · filed 2003-07-16(a)

By definition and its own name, however, supplemental jurisdiction does not provide an independent basis ... for removal. Defendants have failed in their notice of removal to identify a legitimate basis for original jurisdiction over any claim in the removed complaint.

Section 1367(c) applies only when the district court had original jurisdiction over a claim.

Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan · filed 2003-08-08(c)

Moreover, implicit in the Court of Appeals’ earlier decision in the present case is a recognition that the District Court had original jurisdiction over the RICO claims, since the Court of Appeals, despite dismissing those claims, remanded to this Court with direction that it determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),” ... a section that would not be applicable if there had not been original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the same suit includes a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

State Street House, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corp. · filed 2003-09-04(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction as to some claims exists only when the court is empowered to exercise original jurisdiction over other claims presented in the same suit.

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the same action over which the court has original jurisdiction before it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

In Re Kevin Adell's Petition to Authorize · filed 2003-12-03(a)

For the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim, there must be another claim in the action over which the Court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In this action, as detailed supra, the Court does not have original jurisdiction (i.e., federal question or diversity jurisdiction) over any claim. Therefore, Mr. Whall and the Whall Group's argument in favor of supplemental jurisdiction is without merit.

Section 1367(a) requires an action to contain a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction before the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Adell v. Whall · filed 2003-12-03(a)

For the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim, there must be another claim in the action over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the sole federal claim is frivolous and supplies no original jurisdiction.

Williams v. Aztar Indiana Gaming Corporation F/d/b/a Casino Aztar, and Aztar Indiana Gaming Company, LLC D/B/A · filed 2003-12-05(a)

With the dismissal of Williams’s RICO claim, the sole basis for invoking federal jurisdiction is nonexistent and the federal courts should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim in the case.

Blagg v. Technology Group, Inc. · filed 2004-01-21(a)

I interpret the statute, however, to preclude such discretionary exercise of jurisdiction when I conclude I do not have original jurisdiction. By its terms, section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction only in cases where I have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Patterson v. State Bureau of Investigation · filed 2004-02-17(a)

Because Patterson never exhausted his state remedies, the district court lacked both original jurisdiction of his Title VII claims, see Davis v. N.C. Dep’t of Corr., 48 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1995), and supple- mental jurisdiction of his pendent state claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (2000).

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction before supplemental jurisdiction can extend to related state-law claims.

Robert E. Kelly Virginia L. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2004-07-23(a)

However, because the Kellys failed to satisfy the Magnuson-Moss Act’s $50,000 jurisdictional prerequisite, there were no “claims in the action within [its] original jurisdiction” to form the basis for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 requires original subject matter jurisdiction in the district court as a basis for supplemental jurisdiction.

Kaw Nation Ex Rel. McCauley v. Lujan · filed 2004-08-16

And supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 must be predicated upon original subject matter jurisdiction in the district court.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis to retain supplemental state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed for lack of original subject matter jurisdiction.

Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp. · filed 2004-08-16(a)

It therefore follows that without original jurisdiction, there is no proper basis on which the district court can retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Harshmans’ state law claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the court lacks original federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Schimmer, Donald v. Jaguar Cars Inc · filed 2004-09-14(a)

Without federal subject-matter jurisdiction, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction to consider the district court’s interpretation of the Illinois Lemon Law.

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the court lacks original subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc. · filed 2004-10-19(a)

Without federal subject-matter jurisdiction, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction to consider the district court’s interpretation of the Illinois Lemon Law.

Section 1367(a) requires an original federal jurisdiction basis before a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Porter Ex Rel. Robinson v. Hirsch · filed 2004-11-22(a)

We cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claims because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the United States as a defendant.

Section 1367(a) does not give a district court supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Loughlin, Thomas P. v. United States · filed 2004-12-21(a)

In sum, the District Court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the FTCA action. The court had no supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) to entertain any of the non-federal claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Stately v. Indian Community School of Milwaukee, Inc. · filed 2004-12-30(a)

Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Stately’s federal law claims, it has no original jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stately’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related diversity class claims only if a named class member independently satisfies the amount in controversy requirement for original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Micron Technology, Inc. · filed 2005-01-24(a)

For the Court to even consider the question of supplemental jurisdiction, the claims must be related to an action over which the Court indeed has original jurisdiction. In this diversity action, at least one named member of the plaintiff class, discussed infra, must independently establish the requisite amount in controversy.

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the related federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp. · filed 2005-04-28(a)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of plaintiff's TCPA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, there are no federal claims to which plaintiff's state law claim relates that provide a basis for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction before the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over another claim.

Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP · filed 2005-09-19(a)

For a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it must first have before it a claim sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over class members’ claims below the amount-in-controversy threshold only when original diversity jurisdiction is independently established through a named plaintiff’s claim.

Alinsub v. T-Mobile · filed 2006-02-13

The Sixth Circuit’s holding in Olden did not alter the requirement that defendants must establish original diversity jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy, based only on the claims of the named class plaintiffs.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court lacked original jurisdiction over the federal claim at removal.

Hardy v. GMRI, Inc. · filed 2006-03-24(a)

As a natural corollary, Defendant’s removal of the action to federal court was necessarily improper, as there existed no federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ § 2000a claim at the time of removal. Correspondingly, the Court also cannot have acquired proper pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a separate basis of federal question jurisdiction before a related state-law claim can be heard under supplemental jurisdiction.

Atanasio v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen · filed 2006-03-27(a)

Without a separate basis of federal question jurisdiction that could serve as a basis for asserting supplemental jurisdiction, specifically, one arising from a common nucleus of operative fact and of the type that would be expected to be tried in one judicial proceeding, any such claim based solely on state law cannot be properly removed on its own. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the district court has original federal jurisdiction.

Paragon Management, L.L.C. v. Slaughter · filed 2006-05-15(a)

Absent the presence of a federal case or controversy due to lack of standing and ripeness, it is inappropriate for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 with respect to any claims based upon state law. A district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is proper only when a district court has original federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over at least one plaintiff’s claim before supplemental jurisdiction can arise.

Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v. Tmesys, Inc. · filed 2006-05-22(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction requires that the court have original jurisdiction over at least one claim of one plaintiff.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims when the district court lacks jurisdiction over the claims to which they would attach.

Scott v. Pfizer Inc. · filed 2006-05-23(a)

Because the district court did not have jurisdiction over the remainder of Scott’s claims, it did not have supplemental jurisdiction over Scott’s claims against the doctors.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Deep v. Boies · filed 2006-06-26(a)

Because there is no independent ground for federal jurisdiction, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to entertain Deep’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims based solely on original jurisdiction in a separate, independently pending lawsuit.

Empagran, S.A. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. · filed 2006-08-01(a)

It is of no consequence that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over foreign claims that are ancillary to domestic claims if those domestic claims are the subject of a lawsuit that is independent from the actual case in which the foreign claims are being asserted.

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction before supplemental jurisdiction can attach.

Verizon New York Inc. v. Choice One Communications of New York, Inc. · filed 2007-03-27(a)

It should be noted that there is no supplemental jurisdiction in the instant case as there are no federal claims other than Choice One's assertion of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction without a basis for original jurisdiction.

Reading v. United States · filed 2007-09-13

As for supplemental jurisdiction, it is nonexistent absent a basis for original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(d) does not toll limitations for claims subject to original federal jurisdiction rather than supplemental jurisdiction.

Marshall v. Kansas City Southern Railways Co. · filed 2007-11-06(d)

Thus, unlike Boston and Norman, the claims refiled in the instant case were subject to original federal jurisdiction as opposed to supplemental jurisdiction and, therefore, not subject to the tolling provision of section 1367(d).

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the district court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria · filed 2007-11-29(a)

Because Appellants failed to allege any authority to support their APA claim, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the only claim that might have established original jurisdiction (i.e., federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331). As a result, the district court could not assert supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims, and the 2005 complaint was properly dismissed in its entirety.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction when joinder of an indispensable nondiverse party leaves the court without original jurisdiction over any viable suit.

Picciotto v. Continental Casualty Co. · filed 2008-01-07(a)

The plain language of § 1367(a) makes it clear that supplemental jurisdiction does not apply where, as here, the district court lacks original jurisdiction over any viable suit.

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Cobb · filed 2008-03-21(a)

Second, supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims is not appropriate because the federal claims are being dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the civil action.

Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2008-06-18(a)

Section 1367 permits district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.” As stated, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over this case, and thus it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under Section 1367.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over at least one claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over another claim.

Salmon Spawning and Recovery Alliance v. United States · filed 2008-07-15(a)

As we affirm the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of the section 9 claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction over the section 7 claim is unavailable. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which is made applicable to the Court of International Trade by 28 U.S.C. § 1585, supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised when the court does not have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the suit.

Section 1367(a) requires a basis for original jurisdiction before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Tucker v. Toyota · filed 2008-07-16(a)

Finally, without some basis for original jurisdiction in this case, the Court has no power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over at least one claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over another claim.

Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. United States Customs & Border Protection · filed 2008-12-18(a)

Because supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised when a court does not have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the suit, ... and because we affirm the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of the section 9 claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we need not consider and, therefore, do not decide whether the Court of International Trade could have properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Salmon Spawning’s section 7 claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) makes supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim unavailable when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the related federal claim.

Garcia v. Miami Beach Police Dept. · filed 2009-06-04(a)

Because Garcia lacks standing to bring the § 1983 failure to prosecute claim, however, supplemental jurisdiction is unavailable.

Section 1367 cannot support supplemental claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims to which they would attach.

Friederichs v. Gorz · filed 2009-06-08(a)

More importantly, however, Plaintiffs’ argument is flawed because there is no jurisdiction over the claims against IndyMac and, accordingly, there is nothing upon which to append Plaintiffs’ “supplemental” claims.

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Bank of America, N.A. v. United States Internal Revenue Service · filed 2009-07-10(a)

Here, § 1367 fails to provide this Court with jurisdiction over the claims against Defendant Clerk because, as explained above, it does not have original jurisdiction over the claims against the IRS.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim in the action.

Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group · filed 2009-10-05(a)

There are therefore no “other claims” over which the Court has original jurisdiction, and the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of the foreign investors.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a nonfederal claim only when it shares a case or controversy with a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

In Re Xe Services Alien Tort Litigation · filed 2009-10-21(a)

Second, supplemental jurisdiction is also lacking in the three cases alleging only ATS claims. Federal courts may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims if they form part of the same case or controversy as claims “of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Little v. FENTY · filed 2010-03-02(a)

Because the Court lacked original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs action, it cannot exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and would therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs state law claim.

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over a local-law claim when the court lacked original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Little v. Fenty · filed 2010-03-02(a)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s [34] Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED as futile, insofar as she seeks leave to amend her complaint to add a claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fifteenth Amendment and the Home Rule Act, because Plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim under either the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Fifteenth Amendment and the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim brought pursuant to the Home Rule Act.

Section 1367(a) makes supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims depend on the plaintiff’s ability to maintain the federal claims on which that jurisdiction rests.

Mory v. City of Chula Vista · filed 2010-03-12(a)

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on Mory’s federal claims as well as Mory’s state-law claims, which were jurisdictionally dependent on the ability of Mory to maintain her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 requires a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction before the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other claims.

Middlebrooks v. Fuentes · filed 2010-06-11(a)

Without the § 1981 claim, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over any part of plaintiff’s complaint, rendering the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under §§ 1367 or 1441(c) impossible.

Section 1367 cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Jones · filed 2010-08-19

Having determined that there is no basis for original jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, the court concludes that jurisdiction over any supplemental claims invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 necessarily fails.

Section 1367(a) makes supplemental jurisdiction unnecessary when a claim has an independent basis for original jurisdiction.

Kimmel v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC · filed 2010-09-29(a)

This language makes clear that exercising supplemental jurisdiction is only appropriate when original jurisdiction does not exist. Having found that the Court has original jurisdiction over Defendant’s Counterclaim in this case, it is not necessary to consider the issue of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only common-law claims and no claim within original federal jurisdiction.

Rossmann v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC · filed 2011-03-25

Plaintiff's allegations that subject-matter jurisdiction also exists pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, civil rights and elective franchise jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, are without merit. The Amended Complaint’s two counts — unjust enrichment and constructive trust — are common-law based actions, and do not properly fall within either federal question or 28 U.S.C. § 1343 jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction is inapplicable here.

Section 1367(a) permits a bankruptcy court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction only if it has original jurisdiction over another claim.

California Franchise Tax Board v. Wilshire Courtyard (In Re Wilshire Courtyard) · filed 2011-09-19(a)

To support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, the statute requires that there be another claim as to which the bankruptcy court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction in an uncertified class action when no current party’s claim gives the court original jurisdiction.

Med-Surg Group, Inc. v. Aetna Health Management, Inc. · filed 2011-12-19(a)

Additionally, the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over Med-Surg because the court does not have original jurisdiction over any party to the action since the unnamed class members are not currently parties.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim, even if the claims share a common nucleus of operative facts.

Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc. · filed 2012-01-25(a)

Without original jurisdiction on the federal claim, the court cannot assert jurisdiction over state-law claims, even if those claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over related foreign law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the underlying federal claims.

In re BP P.L.C. Securities Litigation · filed 2012-02-13(a)

Because this Court does not have jurisdiction over the Ordinary Share Purchasers’ section 10(b) claims, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ English law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over the removed complaint before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction; it cannot itself supply original jurisdiction over that complaint.

Allstate Insurance v. Nowakowski · filed 2012-03-23(a)

In short, this Court must have original jurisdiction over the removed complaint; it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the removed complaint.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Fifth Third Bank, Inc. · filed 2012-05-25(a)

Furthermore, having found that neither diversity jurisdiction nor bankruptcy jurisdiction is appropriate, there is likewise no basis to support a finding of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires predicate original jurisdiction before a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Altmann v. Homestead Mortgage Income Fund, LLC · filed 2012-05-29(a)

This Court lacks predicate jurisdiction for supplemental jurisdiction over the SAC’s California claims. The SAC demonstrates no right of plaintiffs to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. There is no basis to invoke supplemental jurisdiction to support further dismissal of this action.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint supplies no basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Alec L. v. Jackson · filed 2012-05-31(a)

As Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges no other federal cause of action to...invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction, there is no basis to exercise the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law common law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Resident Minors of the City an v. Brown · filed 2012-09-24(c)

Dismissal without prejudice of Lam’s state law claims was also proper because the district court had no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) once it determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Lam’s federal claims.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over a claim before a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Campbell v. American International Group, Inc. (Aig) · filed 2013-03-01(a)

There can be no supplemental jurisdiction without original jurisdiction to supplement, so 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does her no good.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims only when another claim in the action is within federal jurisdiction on an independent ground.

EL v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2013-03-20(a)

That juris- diction is limited to claims intimately related to claims that are within federal jurisdiction on some other ground.

Section 1367 supplies no supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks an independent basis for original jurisdiction.

CPC Livestock, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, Inc. · filed 2013-04-08(a)

Further, having found no diversity, federal question, or bankruptcy jurisdiction, the Court finds that there is no basis to support a finding of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 confers no supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when original federal jurisdiction is wholly lacking.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Schieffer · filed 2013-05-30

As there is neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction over Schieffer’s contract-based claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses, federal jurisdiction must be based upon the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But courts have uniformly held that, when original federal jurisdiction is wholly lacking (as here), this statute confers no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 requires dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because no claim within original jurisdiction remains to support them.

Stratton v. Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services · filed 2013-05-31

Section 1367 only extends the jurisdiction of a district court to claims which do not themselves fall within any independent basis for federal jurisdiction, but which are closely related to another claim over which the court possesses original jurisdiction. When a district court dismisses federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, there was never a valid claim to which the state claims could be considered supplemental, and dismissal of the state claims is also required.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over a claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Lyles v. Hughes · filed 2013-08-01(a)

Plaintiff cannot resort to supplemental jurisdiction either, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because "[t]here can be no supplemental jurisdiction without original jurisdiction to supplement."3 Campbell v. Am. Int'l Group, Inc.,_ F. Supp. 2d _, _, 2013 WL 765328, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 1, 2013).

Section 1367(a) does not independently establish original jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction requires a civil action within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Hayes v. Shelby County Trustee · filed 2013-09-05(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not establish jurisdiction of the court.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction when none of the claims supplies original federal jurisdiction.

Transcardiac Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yoganathan · filed 2014-02-28(a)

But since none of Plaintiffs state law claims provide federal jurisdiction, the Court has no basis on which to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367 requires a claim within original federal jurisdiction before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Motjuste Tirade of Vim Andre Juste v. Brennan · filed 2014-04-21(a)

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege any claims under federal jurisdiction that would allow for supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction before the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Lutfi v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · filed 2015-01-26(a)

“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that . . . form part of the same case or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... In this case, there simply is no claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction when the court has no basis for original jurisdiction over the action.

Ballard v. Fernandez · filed 2015-04-01(a)

Furthermore, without any basis to exercise original jurisdiction under §§ 1331 or 1332, the district court had no authority to exercise ... jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under § 1367.

Section 1367 requires an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over at least one claim before supplemental jurisdiction can support another claim.

Riddle v. Deutsche Bank National Trust · filed 2015-04-08(a)

And if there is no basis for federal jurisdiction over at least one claim, Riddle cannot rely on supplemental jurisdiction. ... The district court lacked jurisdiction over that part of the case, however, because the parties are not diverse and it cannot be saved by supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 requires original jurisdiction over an action before a district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Ruggier v. Go Mart, Inc. · filed 2015-06-01

Without original jurisdiction over the case, I cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Ruggier's remaining state law claims either.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state common law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the asserted federal claims.

International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America v. Faye · filed 2015-07-20(a)

Because this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs alleged federal law claims, I have no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state common law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over a claim before a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over another claim.

Wright v. Langdeau · filed 2016-01-25(a)

Here, before invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1367, Plaintiffs must first establish this Court’s original jurisdiction over a claim upon which others, not within the Court’s original jurisdiction, may be supplemented. Plaintiffs have not done so. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ cause of action contain no state claims or otherwise that this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction could carry. Thus, § 1367(a) has no relevance and cannot form the jurisdictional basis for Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Section 1367 cannot sustain supplemental claims when the court lacks a basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Antonacci v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-03-18(a)

Without a basis for federal jurisdiction, the supplemental claims also had to go. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) requires an independent basis of original jurisdiction before a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Barnett v. United States · filed 2016-06-30(a)

Without original jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a): there is nothing left to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over class members’ claims when the named plaintiff’s individual claim lacks original diversity jurisdiction.

Rainero v. Archon Corporation · filed 2016-12-21

Finally, the district court properly held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over Rainero’s individual claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and therefore could not exercise § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over the class members’ claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over at least one claim.

Scott Family Properties, LP v. Missouri Highways & Transportation Commission · filed 2017-01-31(a)

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if it has original jurisdiction over at least one related claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). When a court lacks original federal jurisdiction, "this statute confers no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims." Dakota, Minn. & E.R.R. Corp. v. Schieffer, 715 F.3d 712, 713 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Because the district court lacked original jurisdiction over Scott Properties' federal claims, it should not have proceeded to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367 does not permit a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Prather v. AT&T, Inc. · filed 2017-02-06(a)

Without subject matter jurisdiction over Prather’s federal claim, the district court properly concluded it had no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Prather’s state law claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Mains v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2017-03-29

When a district court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over federal claims, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the district court’s original subject matter jurisdiction before the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over another claim.

Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc. · filed 2017-06-19(a)

A dis- trict court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where original subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction unless the district court has original jurisdiction over at least one claim.

Osceola Blackwood Ivory Gaming Group, LLC v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians · filed 2017-07-27(a)

Absent original jurisdiction over any claim, the court cannot assert supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law causes of action.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when all federal claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC · filed 2017-10-11(a)

It follows that when a district court correctly dismisses all federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the district court is thereby precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Medford v. Civil Serv. Emps. Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2017-12-05

Accordingly, given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the LMRDA, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims for breach of the duty of fair representation and for punitive damages and attorney's fees, and dismisses those claims without prejudice to plaintiffs attempting to bring them in state court.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the action’s sole federal claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Bartlett v. Honeywell International Inc. · filed 2018-05-25

We disagree. Our recent precedent precludes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction where an action’s sole federal claim has been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction over a cross-claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the complaint.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa, Am. Home Assurance Co., New Hampshire In · filed 2018-05-29(a)

Because the district court could not exercise diversity jurisdiction over St. Paul’s complaint, it follows that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over AGLIC’s cross-claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

USOR Site PRP Group v. A & M Contractors, Inc., et · filed 2018-08-01

Yet a district court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 where it has original jurisdiction over the federal law claims at issue.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

U.S. Oil Recovery Site Potentially Responsible Parties Grp. v. R.R. Comm'n of Tex. · filed 2018-08-01(a)

Yet a district court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 where it has original jurisdiction over the federal law claims at issue.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over the civil action; federal claims brought without standing cannot supply it.

LeMaster v. Ditech Financial LLC · filed 2018-08-03(a)

But § 1367 permits courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction only for a civil action for “which the district courts have original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over every federal claim.

Sanzone v. Health · filed 2018-08-27(a)

Because I do not have original subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' ERISA and Establishment Clause claims, I have no authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a proper basis for original federal jurisdiction before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Rodriguez v. Velez-Pagan · filed 2018-10-26(a)

Because all other claims asserted in this action are barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, I cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Velez-Pagan in his individual capacity.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the court has original jurisdiction over another asserted claim.

Doe, John v. Saint. Paul Conservatory for the Performing Arts · filed 2018-12-18(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction is permitted when the Court possesses original jurisdiction over other claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, the Court does not possess original jurisdiction over any asserted claim and, therefore, cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claim.

Section 1367(a) cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the sole federal claim fails for lack of Article III standing.

Rivera v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2019-01-14(a)

Because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring the FCRA claim, there is no original jurisdictional “hook” to support an assertion of § 1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim, and the district court was without power to hear it.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim; without complete diversity, there is no claim to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach.

Farar v. Weston · filed 2019-01-25(a)

As neither Ms. Farar nor GEICO has established that complete diversity exists, there are no claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that would permit the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought by or against GEICO.

Section 1367 does not permit a district court to retain supplemental state-law claims when no basis for original federal jurisdiction exists.

Jackson v. Pitney Bowes, Incorporated · filed 2019-02-26(a)

A district court has no discretion to retain supplemental state-law claims when no basis for original federal jurisdiction exists.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction before a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Goldberg v. United States · filed 2019-03-22(a)

This argument fails to establish how the Court has original jurisdiction over Goldberg’s claims such that supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate to consider.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court has neither federal-question nor diversity jurisdiction over the case.

Loved Ones In Home Care, LLC v. Toor · filed 2019-06-27

Without federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, this court lacks supplemental jurisdiction to hear the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim in the action.

Holmes v. Grooms · filed 2019-07-01(a)

Accordingly, there is no basis upon which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the claim to which they relate.

Rasmussen, Gilbert v. Sawyer County, Wisconsin · filed 2019-07-31(a)

Because I do not have original jurisdiction over the abandonment claim, I cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rasmussen’s other state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the case.

SD-3C, LLC v. Barun Electronics Co., Ltd. · filed 2019-09-16(a)

Third, because of the foregoing, the Court lacks the ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), district courts may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction in cases in “which the district courts have original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367 does not independently establish jurisdiction; it permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Brown v. Baltimore County, Maryland · filed 2019-09-16(a)

Section 1367 does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction. Rather, § 1367 allows for a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but only where the complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the action.

Welch v. Pen Air Bank Corporation · filed 2019-09-25(a)

As Welch has failed to allege a substantial, nonfrivolous federal claim and has failed to adequately plead and prove the existence of diversity jurisdiction, this Court lacks original jurisdiction over his claims. Accordingly, there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over any of Welch’s claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over any claim in the action.

Gapski v. United States Postal Service · filed 2019-09-26(a)

Without original jurisdiction, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Gapski’s claim against Celina. See 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court lacks original federal question jurisdiction because there is no cognizable federal claim.

C. P. v. Doe · filed 2019-10-01(a)

Without a cognizable federal claim, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s Complaint and thereby also lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s asserted state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).