28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 does not permit a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it lacks original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Kootenai County · filed 2019-10-17(a)

When a court does not have original jurisdiction, however, it may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 requires an original basis for subject matter jurisdiction before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Morris v. Shaw · filed 2019-10-21(a)

Because an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction requires the Court to have had subject matter jurisdiction in the first place, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court must consider whether such jurisdiction ever existed.

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

Lundstrom v. Young · filed 2019-12-05(a)

Since this Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal claim under Rule 12(b)(1) on ... the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court therefore concludes that it lacks ... the authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over related claims when the court acquired no original subject matter jurisdiction upon removal because of the derivative jurisdiction doctrine.

(PS) Lamoire v. Western Area Power Administration · filed 2019-12-16(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all claims related to claims over which the court has original subject matter jurisdiction. Because, however, this court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction when the matter was removed, it lacks jurisdiction at all and cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims against the private parties.

Section 1367 cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when those claims lack a federal jurisdictional anchor.

Radke v. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · filed 2009-11-02

This dismissal is of course without prejudice to (1) a possible reassertion of Radke’s equal protection claim that would fill the gap identified here or (2) a possible filing in a court of competent jurisdiction of the state law claims that are dismissed here only because they lack a federal anchor (as to either of those possibilities, no view is expressed here on the merits).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Melek v. Kayashima · filed 2007-12-28(c)(3)

Because the district court lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction, it properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Melek’s state law claim.

Section 1367 gives a district court no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Gherini v. Lagomarsino · filed 2007-11-09(c)(3)

Because the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Gherini’s federal claim, it has no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gherini’s remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction when no claim supplies original federal jurisdiction.

Radden v. Hmo Illinois, Inc. · filed 1993-10-15(a)

Since none of Radden's possible claims provides original jurisdiction for the federal court, supplemental jurisdiction is also lacking.

Section 1367(a) does not give a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims in a removed state court suit when it lacks original jurisdiction over the suit.

Zewe v. Law Firm of Adams & Reese · filed 1993-11-03(a)

In the opinion of this court, a district court does not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to entertain the merits of claims in a state court suit which was removed without original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only over a claim brought in an action for which the court has original jurisdiction; it cannot support an independent action on its own.

Veeder v. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska · filed 1994-10-03(a)

By its terms, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 requires that the supplemental claim be brought in an action in which the court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the related federal claims.

Butte Mining PLC v. Smith · filed 1995-01-31(a)

Because supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims is dependent upon the court’s federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)), the state-law claims are also appropriately dismissed.

Section 1367(a) cannot supply jurisdiction over a counterclaim when the original claim lacks a federal jurisdictional basis; the counterclaim needs an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Toste Farm Corp. v. Hadbury, Inc. · filed 1995-04-05(a)

Because I have determined that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claim, I would have to find an independent basis for jurisdiction over the counterclaim in order to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants’ counterclaim.

Section 1367 does not permit review of supplemental state law claims when the plaintiff does not state a federal claim.

Bennett v. Michael Batchik Oakland County Walled Lake City · filed 1995-04-21

Finally, we note that because Bennett does not state a federal claim, Bennett's supplemental state law claims were not reviewable by the district court.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over any claim.

State of Louisiana v. Sprint Communications Co. · filed 1995-06-28

It ought to be obvious that because federal subject matter jurisdiction is completely lacking there is nothing upon which to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has stated no federal claims to support it.

Messa v. Allstate Ins. Co. · filed 1995-08-11

Moreover, Messa has not stated any federal claims that would permit this court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the claim that would support it.

Atlantia Corporation and Seahorse Equipment Corporation v. Sea Engineering Associates, Inc. And Pieter G. Wybro · filed 1996-08-23

Because there was no jurisdiction for Atlantia's patent-related claims, there was also no supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for Atlantia's trade secret claim.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no claim supports federal jurisdiction.

Clinton v. Acequia, Inc. · filed 1996-08-27

In summary, none of the five counts in Clinton’s state court complaint presents a federal claim capable of supporting removal. In consequence, we may not adjudicate the remaining state claims under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Virginia · filed 1996-10-03(a)

For the reasons stated, the court dismisses Count One for lack of jurisdiction because there is no case or controversy; Counts Two, Three, Six, and Seven for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine; and the state law claims in Counts Four, Five, Six, and Nine for lack of original federal jurisdiction on which to base supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over proposed class members’ claims when the named plaintiffs’ claims lack original diversity jurisdiction.

Scott v. American Tobacco Co. · filed 1996-10-31(a)

The defendants rely on three cases in support of an argument for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Because of the limitation of membership to Louisianians and the status of the nondiverse defendants as major Louisiana distributors, the defendants' proposition lacks factual support for purposes of these motions. ... In addition, this is not a situation in which the Court has original jurisdiction by virtue of diversity over the named plaintiffs' claims.

Section 1367 does not give a district court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when there is no valid federal claim for it to supplement.

Kerry Denil and Joyce Denil v. State Bank of Kewaunee-Algoma, Formerly Known as First State Bank of Algoma · filed 1996-10-17(a)

Without a valid federal claim for this claim to supplement, this claim is not within a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.

United States Ex Rel. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 1996-11-25(a)

Because this Court has no original jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims, the Court ... cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not permit a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when it never had original jurisdiction over the complaint.

Degruise by and Through Upchurch v. NPC Intern., Inc. · filed 1997-01-17

The court has no discretion regarding retention of this action, as it has at no time possessed subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs complaint.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction based on federal claims dismissed for lack of standing, because those claims supplied no original jurisdiction at the outset.

Gaia Technologies, Inc. v. Reconversion Technologies, Inc. · filed 1997-03-26(a)

Since there was no standing on the patent and trademark infringement claims, supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims cannot be exercised under § 1367(a) based on the patent and trademark claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental claims only within an existing civil action that has an independent basis for original jurisdiction; related claims in separate federal actions cannot supply jurisdiction for removal.

Stern v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY · filed 1997-04-03(a)

This clearly shows that the statute affords supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims only in an existing civil action.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a diversity suit when none of its named plaintiffs meets the amount-in-controversy requirement, even if another suit may meet it.

Addison v. Illinois Central Railroad · filed 1997-04-04

Furthermore, from the analysis above with respect to the amount-in-controversy, the Court does not believe that any one of the named plaintiffs in the Addison matter reach the requisite amount such that supplemental jurisdiction could exist within the context of this case.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the purported federal claims do not support original federal jurisdiction.

Bryant v. Yellow Freight Systems · filed 1997-05-29(a)

For now, however, it must be held that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking on all of Bryant’s attempted federal-question claims, so that no Section 1367(a) foundation exists for the attachment of his ten state law claims either.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim remains.

Berthelot v. Travelers Insurance · filed 1997-06-05

As there is no claim against United Wisconsin, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Kaelin v. Tenneco, Inc. · filed 1998-03-16

This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. First, because there is no ERISA-governed plan, this court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claims in the first instance.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims against a defendant when the federal claim against that defendant was not viable when filed.

Gill v. Upson Regional Medical Center · filed 1998-05-29(a)

Unless there was an initial basis for jurisdiction over Patrick in the first instance, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(c) does not govern remand when no federal question was pleaded to provide original jurisdiction.

Eastern States Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. · filed 1998-06-29(c)

The Court stresses, however, that it holds that no federal question has been pleaded on the face of the Complaint which would provide a basis for jurisdiction. This remand is therefore one under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and not one under § 1367(c).

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the pleaded federal claim supplies no original jurisdiction.

Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc. · filed 1998-08-18(a)

As a result, pleading count one does not bestow federal jurisdiction over the state law actions under section 1367.

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

Veale v. Penuche’s Ale House · filed 1998-11-02(a)

Whether or not plaintiff could assert a claim under the New Hampshire Constitution, as he alleges, or state law, he has not invoked this court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1332, or § 1343. This court, therefore, cannot exercise its supplemental jurisdiction power over any state law claims plaintiff may have. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Pejepscot Industrial Park, Inc. v. Maine Central Railroad · filed 1999-07-26(a)

As discussed above, this court does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim in Count III, and therefore, § 1367(a) does not grant this Court supplemental jurisdiction to hear the other claims Plaintiff has raised.

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

Jenkins v. Washington Convention Center · filed 1999-08-12(a)

While plaintiffs also request supplemental jurisdiction over the claims they advance under District law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the absence of federal subject matter jurisdiction precludes a consideration of these claims as well.

Section 1367(a) does not support pendent state-law claims when the court lacks an independent basis for original jurisdiction.

Jedrejcic v. Croatian Olympic Committee · filed 1999-12-03(a)

If the court finds that there is no diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, any pendant state law claims should be dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related common law claims when a federal claim remains pending.

Rohan v. Networks Presentation, LLC. · filed 2001-12-03(a)

The argument is premised on the assumption that, were I to grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to all three ADA claims, this court could no longer exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims. However, because I have not dismissed Count I, it is appropriate for the court to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the related claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related class members’ claims when aggregation of the named plaintiffs’ claims establishes original diversity jurisdiction over the action.

Aldrich v. University of Phoenix · filed 2016-10-24(a)

When the court appropriately exercises original jurisdiction over an action, claims that are related to the claims making up that action can be added to the suit under § 1367.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims requires a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

(PC) Scott v. Arvizo · filed 2019-11-15

Although the court may exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for ... relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In this instance, the court fails to find any ... cognizable federal claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law ... claims fail.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when the plaintiff has stated no related federal claim.

Bennett v. Clark · filed 2019-11-19(a)

Because the plaintiff has not stated a federal claim against Dantzler, the court does not have jurisdiction to consider his state-law negligence claim against Dantzler.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Webster County Lumber Co. v. Wayne · filed 2003-03-24(a)

As there is no federal jurisdiction over Count I, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 can provide no basis for jurisdiction over Count II.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the same civil action, and ancillary enforcement jurisdiction over a settlement agreement does not satisfy that requirement.

Earle Myers, Jr. v. Richland County · filed 2005-11-16(a)

Because the IIED and defamation claims are not part of the same civil action as is the Jones-Van Tassel discrimination claim and the district court’s ancillary enforcement jurisdiction over the breach of settlement agreement claim is not original jurisdiction, the district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367 over the IIED and defamation claims.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the same civil action, and ancillary enforcement jurisdiction over a settlement agreement does not satisfy that requirement.

Myers v. Richland County · filed 2005-11-16(a)

Therefore, before a district court asks whether it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over some claims in an action, it must first determine that it has original jurisdiction over the civil action within the meaning of § 1367(a); in other words, it must have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the complaint. ... Ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, like supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367, is not original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over a claim of the plaintiff whose state law claims are brought under supplemental jurisdiction.

Feliciano v. Rico · filed 2009-12-22(a)

Here, because ... the Court does not find the prerequisite original jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Minor Plaintiffs' claims.

Section 1367 does not provide an independent ground of jurisdiction when the court lacks jurisdiction over the primary cause of action.

Simpson v. Thompson · filed 2020-02-27(a)

Likewise, Simpson’s reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to the extent he seeks to invoke § 1367 as an independent ground of jurisdiction, is unavailing given the Court’s lack of jurisdiction over Simpson’s primary cause of action.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims lack Article III standing and the court therefore never had original jurisdiction.

American Cricket Premier League, LLC v. USA Cricket · filed 2020-03-12(a)

If Plaintiff’s federal antitrust claims had stated an Article III case or controversy, then the Court would have had original jurisdiction over them (through Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331). But, as to those claims, it turns out that this Court has only ever had “jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002). It has never had original jurisdiction, and so it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the court lacks jurisdiction over all purported federal claims.

Osei v. Standard Chartered Bank · filed 2020-03-17(a)

However, the Court has found no jurisdictional basis to hear any of Osei’s purported federal claims. Therefore, the Court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims that might remain.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when neither federal-question nor diversity jurisdiction exists.

Harrington v. City of Shiner, Texas · filed 2020-03-20(a)

Having addressed the Court's original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court now considers whether it has supplemental jurisdiction over Harrington's state-law claims. ... Harrington’s complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, no subject matter jurisdiction exists over this case.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction and does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Friends of Lydia Ann Channel v. Lydia Ann Channel Moorings, LLC · filed 2020-03-24(a)

Because the federal claims should be dismissed under rule 12(b)(1), the Court cannot extend supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacked original subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim at the time the action was filed.

Casablanca Construction, Inc. v. Coast Transit Authority · filed 2020-03-24(a)

Because the Court never had original subject-matter jurisdiction over Casablanca’s claims against FEMA at the time this case was filed, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Casablanca’s other claims against the remaining Defendants.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law attorney-fee claims when original federal jurisdiction was lacking from the outset.

Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. Maronda Homes, Inc. of Florida · filed 2020-03-25(a)

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. ... However, the few courts that have squarely addressed it have pointed out—accurately, this Court believes—that Prime’s holding is incorrect.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when sovereign immunity prevented original jurisdiction over the claims against the United States.

McNeil v. Duncan · filed 2020-03-31(a)

Here, however, the United States is immune from suit, and thus the Court never had “original jurisdiction” over the claims against the United States. Because “supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 must be predicated upon original subject matter jurisdiction in the district court,” the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the absence of a jurisdictional predicate.

Section 1367 creates no independent cause of action and permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Turner v. Hawkins · filed 2020-04-17(a)

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

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court never had original jurisdiction over any claim in the action.

Mega Vape, LLC v. The City of San Antonio · filed 2020-04-22(a)

Because Plaintiff has never asserted a federal claim in this action, this Court has “never had original jurisdiction over any of the claims in this action.” Id. Consequently, there is no federal jurisdiction to supple- ment through § 1367.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint asserts no actionable claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

LARSEN v. LINTHICUM · filed 2020-05-05(a)

Finally, although federal district courts can in certain cases exercise jurisdiction over state law claims between non-diverse parties based on the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367,3 because Plaintiff has not asserted an actionable claim within the Court’s original jurisdiction against any of the defendants, the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction is inapplicable.

Section 1367 does not govern state-law claims over which a federal court has original diversity jurisdiction.

DOBSON v. THE MILTON HERSHEY SCHOOL AND SCHOOL TRUST · filed 2020-05-06

We note that, because the instant case comes before us on diversity jurisdiction and not federal question, the Court has original jurisdiction over Dobson’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We thus have no basis to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dobson’s state-law claims inasmuch as we never needed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over any claim.

Reach Global Inc. v. Ridenhour · filed 2020-05-10

There is no diversity, see Notice of Removal at ¶¶ 1-5; §1332, and absent any federal cause of action, I may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to defer deciding supplemental jurisdiction when original jurisdiction over any claim remains unclear.

Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Louis · filed 2020-05-15(a)

Because it is not clear at this stage of the proceeding that this Court has original jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court need not now ascertain whether it has supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Donohue v. Lloyd · filed 2020-06-01(a)

Having found that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court also must conclude that it lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Creamer v. Sherer · filed 2020-06-08(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims and they will not be screened.

Section 1367 requires original jurisdiction over an underlying claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Day v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority · filed 2020-06-22(a)

Further, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over supplemental claims only when they have original jurisdiction over an underlying claim.

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

Acedo v. County of San Diego · filed 2020-06-24(a)

With the dismissal of Claim 1 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has no authority to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Rouhi v. Kettler · filed 2020-06-24(a)

Here, as described above, this Court does not have original jurisdiction over any of the claims in this case. Thus, supplemental jurisdiction does not provide a mechanism for this Court to adjudicate Rouhi’s claims.

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

Vellon v. Coley · filed 2020-07-02(a)

Without these sources of original jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction is also unavailable. See § 1367(a) (stating that supplemental jurisdiction is available in actions in which the district court possesses original jurisdiction).

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

Abdulkadir v. Peterson · filed 2020-07-16(a)

Unless this court has original jurisdiction over the ... § 1983 claims, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; without such an original claim, supplemental jurisdiction is unavailable.

Dimarzo v. CMS (Centers for Medicare) · filed 2020-07-17(a)

Although the court could have supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Munoz, McGill, and Grimm pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 if the claims against those individuals “derive[d] from a common nucleus of operative fact” with a claim over which the court has jurisdiction, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), Plaintiff has neither presented a claim over which the court can exercise subject- matter jurisdiction nor pled any facts regarding the individual Defendants.” The court therefore concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants as well.

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

Waad v. Movsesyan · filed 2020-07-20(a)

Consequently, there is no claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction to support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law extortion claim in Count II.

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

Britton v. County of Santa Cruz · filed 2020-07-22(a)

Because supplemental jurisdiction requires that the Court have original jurisdiction over at least one other claim, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law declaratory relief claim.

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

Redford v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2020-08-10(a)

But, “[w]hen 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.” Mains v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 679 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2017) (same). The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Redford’s federal claim against the United States. Therefore, it appears as though the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Redford’s remaining claims.

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

Lavin v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2020-08-12(a)

Therefore, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over Count One and cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Two.

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

Maxwell v. Kaylor · filed 2020-08-14(a)

Moreover, for the reasons stated in this order, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has original jurisdiction over any claims. Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Sanders v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company · filed 2020-08-25(a)

Having determined that the court is without original jurisdiction over Sanders’s claims, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Progressive’s counterclaim.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all claims.

Martin v. Saginaw · filed 2020-08-28

The problem here is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s claims, so pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is inapplicable.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in an action with no claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

OAT Trustee, LLC v. Elite Investment Group, LLC · filed 2020-09-08(a)

The Court has concluded that it does not have federal question jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s state law claims. Thus, there is no basis for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims in the same action but does not supply original jurisdiction for removal of a separate state court action.

Karam v. Vadiei · filed 2020-09-15(a)

The complaint in this case alleges neither diversity of citizenship nor a federal claim, and, as explained above, the supplemental jurisdiction bestowed by § 1367 is not a source of original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a court no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it lacks jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Au v. Trustees of The Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop · filed 2020-09-16(a)

Given the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims, it must also dismiss the state law claims because it has no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.9 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Prather v. AT&T, Inc., 847 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the court has an independent basis for original jurisdiction.

Edgewater Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Balis · filed 2020-10-19(a)

Because there is no indication the Court has original jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction is irrelevant.

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

Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Finley · filed 2020-10-22(a)

In a civil action in which a federal court has original jurisdiction over a claim, additional claims may fall within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction—even though they do not independently satisfy subject matter jurisdiction requirements—if they are sufficiently related to the original claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Magistrate Judge concluded, and the Court agrees for the reasons set forth above, that no original jurisdiction exists in this case. (ECF No. 8, 7.) Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that there is no supplemental jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1367(a) requires a basis for original jurisdiction before a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Ladders, Inc. v. Vindicia, Inc. · filed 2020-10-29(a)

Moreover, since there is no subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Ladders’s claims against Vindicia, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Ladders’s claims against Larsen and PLC under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as Ladders alleges.

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

Declue v. Family Law Services · filed 2020-10-30(a)

Absent such basis, the court may not exercise supplemental 11 jurisdiction over the state law claims against them.

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

Strojnik v. HPTRI Corporation · filed 2020-11-20(a)

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Applied Capital, LLC v. Crystal Foods and Gas, Inc. · filed 2020-11-20(a)

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not established original jurisdiction, DDP cannot enter federal court by way of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Brockington v. Lowe's Home Improvement · filed 2020-11-30(a)

Consequently, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Strojnik v. Lonesome Valley Hospitality LLC · filed 2020-12-01(a)

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Head v. United States · filed 2020-12-09(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court may exercise “jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” As explained above, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Head’s other claims. Thus, it had no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the court has original jurisdiction over at least one claim to which the additional claims can adhere.

Mitchell v. Bailey · filed 2020-12-14

Any exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would not have been proper, for there was no claim over which the district court had original jurisdiction and to which supplemental jurisdiction could adhere.

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

Mitchell v. Bailey · filed 2020-12-30

Any exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would not have been proper, for there was no claim over which the district court had original jurisdiction and to which supplemental jurisdiction could adhere.

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

Scott v. Dean · filed 2023-02-27(a)

Additionally, finding no original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim.

Saunders v. Breit MF Preserve at Lakeland, LLC · filed 2023-02-28(a)

For the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court must first have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 supplies no supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when the asserted federal question basis for original jurisdiction fails.

Berreyes v. Southern California Gas Company · filed 2023-03-16(a)

Because the Court concludes there is no federal question subject matter jurisdiction here, the Court necessarily does not have supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Without original jurisdiction over the action, a court declines supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims under § 1367(a).

Tackett v. 3M Company · filed 2023-03-28(a)

Further, seeing as the Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party claims.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over an action before a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims.

Castle v. 3M Company · filed 2023-03-28(a)

Further, seeing as the Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party claims.

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

Santana v. NCB Management Services, Inc · filed 2023-05-03(a)

The Court find no basis to exercise jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332; therefore, the Court cannot exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over his state law contract claim.

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

Kollin v. Brio Incorporated · filed 2023-06-14(a)

There must then be an underlying basis for jurisdiction if a federal court is to hear state law claims. Because all of the Plaintiffs’ federal claims are being dismissed, and there is no other basis for original jurisdiction in this Court, all of their state law claims will be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over other claims.

Evans v. The City of New York · filed 2023-08-08(a)

But the Court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims where the Court has original jurisdiction over other claims arising under federal law.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no claim remains within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Corral-Bey v. Fluor Flatiron Balfour Beatty Dragados DBJV · filed 2023-09-18(a)

Because the Court finds that the allegedly preempted claims must be remanded to state court, there is no basis for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Daniels v. Novant Health Inc · filed 2023-10-20(a)

Finally, without original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Perez v. Byrd · filed 2023-10-23(a)

And because the Court has no original jurisdiction over any claim, it has no supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

De Leon v. J.M. Equipment Company, Inc. · filed 2023-12-07(a)

However, because defendant has not proven that any of plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the LMRA, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Coritsidis v. Khal Bnei Torah of Mount Ivy · filed 2024-01-03

Because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over any of the federal claims, the state law claims against KBT are dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint alleges no plausible basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Clark v. Spitz Law Firm, LLC · filed 2024-01-25(a)

And because Plaintiff has not alleged a plausible basis for original jurisdiction, the Court also lacks pendant jurisdiction for the remaining claims arising under state law.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has not alleged a plausible basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Clark v. Williams · filed 2024-01-25(a)

And finally, because Plaintiff has not alleged a plausible basis for original jurisdiction, the Court also lacks pendant jurisdiction for the remaining claims arising under state law.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim when the court lacks jurisdiction over the underlying claim.

John Berkery, Sr. v. Experian plc · filed 2024-03-01(a)

Because the District Court lacks jurisdiction over Berkery’s claim, it also lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Trans Union’s counterclaim.

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

Sardakowski v. State of Texas · filed 2024-03-01(a)

Because Sardakowski has not pleaded a viable claim over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim she has alleged.

Section 1367 does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the action.

Waters v. Rockett · filed 2024-03-18(a)

However, pursuant to section 1367, a court must first have federal question jurisdiction before it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Dervitz v. ARS National Services Inc · filed 2024-03-19(a)

Just as Article III standing is required to vest a federal court with original jurisdiction, original jurisdiction is a prerequisite for a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because Dervitz lacks standing as to her federal claim, the District Court lacked original jurisdiction over that claim and therefore could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

LAMBETH v. CITY OF HIGH POINT · filed 2024-05-07(a)

Because the court lacks original jurisdiction over any claim here, however, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over related claims only after the court has an independent basis for original jurisdiction.

Hansbro v. White · filed 2024-05-08(a)

Unlike diversity and federal jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction is not an independent legal basis for the Court to hear a claim. Instead, it is used as a supplement to introduce other claims after diversity or federal jurisdiction is established.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the action has no viable federal claim supplying original jurisdiction.

Williams v. Pelosi · filed 2024-06-11(a)

Thus, supplemental jurisdiction does not apply.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the case.

Taylor v. Townsend · filed 2024-07-09(a)

Ms. Taylor has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, and the Court thus cannot accept supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims lack Article III standing and cannot supply original jurisdiction.

Lawless v. T Financial Services, LLC · filed 2024-07-18(a)

Because this Court dismissed each of the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint under the federal statutes for lack of standing, or based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, “supplemental jurisdiction can never exist (emphasis in original).” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th Cir. 1996).

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction.

Foothills Resource Group, Inc. v. Darts Rentals, LLC · filed 2024-10-07(a)

Without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the Plaintiff's claims.

Section 1367(a) cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no claim establishes original federal jurisdiction.

ISON v. NEW BEGINNINGS REALTY & PROPERTY MANG. · filed 2024-10-29(a)

A federal court may only adjudicate state-law claims when there is also a properly brought federal-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 requires an independent basis for original federal jurisdiction before a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Myles v. Thompson · filed 2024-12-27(a)

As Plaintiffs have asserted no valid federal claim and there is no diversity jurisdiction, this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367 requires an independent basis for original jurisdiction and cannot supply subject matter jurisdiction by itself.

Braxton v. Super Ego Holding · filed 2025-04-09(a)

Finally, as no independent basis for jurisdiction has been shown, the supplemental jurisdiction statute does not confer a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Bey v. Arkansas State Police · filed 2025-06-10(a)

Mr. Bey has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, and the Court thus cannot accept supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim.

Section 1367 requires a basis for original jurisdiction before a federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Moore v. DCFS Child and Family Services · filed 2025-06-12(a)

The Court will not address the merits of the state-law claims, because even if the allegations properly stated any claim, the Court has no original jurisdiction and thus has no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Collins v. North Park Lexus of San Antonio · filed 2025-06-24(a)

Finally, because the Amended Complaint does not present an adequate basis for federal question jurisdiction, and Collins cannot rely on diversity jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state-law claims Collins may be attempting to as- sert. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has no original jurisdiction over any claim in the case.

Miguel Contreras, Jr., by and through his Medical Power of Attorney, Matthew Andrew Garces, RN, CEO, and Individually v. · filed 2025-10-02(a)

Because this Court has not obtained original jurisdiction over any federal claim in this case, “there is no federal jurisdiction to supplement through § 1367.” Id.

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

Clemons v. Snyder · filed 2025-10-08(a)

Because no federal claims exist, supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims is not appropriate under § 1367.

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

Schooley · filed 2025-11-18(a)

Finally, contrary to the Schooleys’ assertion in their additional response brief (Doc. 11 at 9), the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Trestle Creek’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Lewis-Junge · filed 2025-12-05(a)

Plaintiff must allege cognizable federal claims before this Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state tort allegations.

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

Mattingly v. Justice · filed 2024-09-12(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does allow for supplemental jurisdiction; however, the statute ... requires that there first be original subject matter jurisdiction over a claim before supplemental ... jurisdiction over other claims is possible.

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

Howard v. Bow Wow Properties I, Inc. · filed 2021-01-06(a)

But I can exercise supplemental jurisdiction only if there first exists a related claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed for lack of standing.

Strojnik v. R.F. Weichert V, Inc. · filed 2021-01-25(a)

Having dismissed Mr. Strojnik’s ADA claim for lack of standing, this Court has no authority to retain jurisdiction over his state law claims. Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).

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

Cellucci v. O'Leary · filed 2021-01-25(a)

But to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action.

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

Lopez v. Hay · filed 2021-01-26(a)

Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, supplemental jurisdiction exists “when the district court has a hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang it.” ... Having decided in part that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims because Ms. Lopez lacks standing, there is no original jurisdiction that the state law claims can hang to.

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

Lannunziata v. American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC · filed 2021-01-27(a)

There cannot, however, be supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims absent a basis for federal jurisdiction in the action.

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over any claim.

Payton v. Bizal · filed 2021-02-08(a)

Having found that plaintiff has failed to assert a claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Verma v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 2021-02-10(a)

Finally, because this Court does not have original jurisdiction, there is no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims only when the same action includes a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Gilbert v. Cates · filed 2021-03-02(a)

Because the Court has determined that it lacks federal jurisdiction over any of the claims asserted in Mr. Gilbert’s Petition, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted therein.

Section 1367 requires original jurisdiction over at least one claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Ricketts v. Joyce · filed 2021-03-08(a)

Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish that the Court has original jurisdiction over any of the claims against any of the parties, the Court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the action has no claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

(PC) Singh v. California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility · filed 2021-03-15(a)

Additionally, as it appears that Plaintiff is only asserting state law claims and as the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction either.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court dismisses the sole federal claim for lack of standing.

Strojnik v. Portola Hotel, LLC · filed 2021-03-17(a)

Having dismissed Mr. Strojnik’s ADA claim for lack of standing, this Court has no authority to retain jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when a cognizable federal claim provides original jurisdiction.

(PC) Sandoval v. Diaz · filed 2021-03-19(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367(a) does not permit a federal court to retain jurisdiction over state law claims when it lacks jurisdiction over the federal claim because the plaintiff lacks Article III standing.

Strojnik v. Flagrock Hospitality LLC · filed 2021-03-22(a)

Strojnik lacks standing to proceed in this Court, and this Court consequently has no authority to retain jurisdiction over his state law claims. See Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).

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

SACCHI v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED · filed 2021-03-23(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367, however, requires first that the district court have original jurisdiction over one of the claims.

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

Wittbecker v. Cupertino Electric · filed 2021-04-14(a)

Without federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FCRA claim, this Court could not (and in any event would not, in its discretion) exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction when the district court lacks original jurisdiction over the action.

Kraft v. Hatch · filed 2021-04-23(a)

But because the district court had no original jurisdiction, Kraft’s complaint cannot be saved by this provision.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over any claim.

Maddox v. Zera · filed 2021-05-03

Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over any of Maddox’s claims, the Court cannot assert supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it finds no original federal jurisdiction.

Scott v. Neal · filed 2021-05-13(a)

For the reasons mentioned above, this court does not have original federal jurisdiction. Further, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when the district court has an underlying basis for original jurisdiction.

Surkhi v. King · filed 2021-05-17

However, this Court has no authority to adjudicate supplemental claims under § 1367 where there is no underlying subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Pearsall v. Warden of Baltimore County Detention Center · filed 2021-05-26(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 [a court’s] 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 because, as explained above, Plaintiff has not presented a valid Sixth Amendment claim.

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

Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. v. Marathon Oil Company · filed 2021-05-26(a)

While it is true that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) would give the federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims, there must first be a case over which the court has original jurisdiction.

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

Williams v. Browns · filed 2021-06-07(a)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law or otherwise established this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims and they will not be screened.

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

Lopes v. Reddit, Inc. · filed 2021-06-14(a)

Given that Lopes has not established a cause of action arising under federal law, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim only when the court has original jurisdiction over a viable federal claim.

Muhammad v. Frakes · filed 2021-07-02(a)

This state-law claim can only be heard by this court exercising supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367,2 but that requires a viable § 1983 claim, over which the court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a defamation claim when the court has no claim within its original jurisdiction.

McRae v. Niagara Bottling, LLC · filed 2021-07-15(c)(3)

And the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a defamation claim where there is no other claim over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim when the court has no claim over which it has original jurisdiction.

McRae v. Jackson Lewis P.C. · filed 2021-07-15(c)(3)

And the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a defamation claim where there is no other claim over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not independently create jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim requires a related claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Torres v. Nexus-Woodbourne Family Healing · filed 2021-07-20(a)

Section 1367 does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction; rather, it allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only where the Complaint also pleads related federal claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has no original subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Williams v. Browns · filed 2021-07-21(a)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law or otherwise established this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims is not appropriate.