28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

LUND v. PAUL L. DUNBAR GROUP · filed 2021-07-21(a)

In the absence of some separate basis for subject matter jurisdiction over at least one claim, this Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over any other claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when at least one claim is within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Alega Preservation Institute v. AST Telecomm LLC · filed 2021-08-31(a)

Setting aside the fact that Plaintiffs have not alleged any recognizable state or territorial claims, supplemental jurisdiction is only proper where at least one claim is within the original jurisdiction of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, because plaintiffs have not asserted any federal cause of action, the court cannot retain jurisdiction over the case at all, let alone elect to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state or territorial law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the court has original jurisdiction over a federal claim and the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Brokaw v. IL Department of Human Services · filed 2021-09-16(a)

When a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action such as a § 1983 claim, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), so long as the state claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” with the original federal claims. Wisconsin v. Ho- Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, because there are no allegations stating a colorable constitutional claim cognizable via a § 1983 action, the Court does not have original jurisdiction.

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

Romero v. Allwell from Absolute Total Care · filed 2021-09-17(a)

Therefore, the court has no original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as pleaded, and cannot consider his supplemental state law claims.

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

Strojnik v. Choice Hotels International Incorporated · filed 2021-09-20(a)

Having found that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Strojnik’s ADA claims, 3 || the Court consequently finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Strojnik’s remaining state law claims.

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

Howell v. Bancorporation · filed 2021-09-22(a)

As previously stated, there is no CAFA jurisdiction here, so supplemental jurisdiction is unavailable.

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

Myles v. The State of Georgia Bar · filed 2021-09-22

As a result, the Court also does not have 28 U.S.C. § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s various state law claims.

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

Jones v. Scarborough · filed 2021-09-22(a)

On the other hand, without original jurisdiction, a federal court generally cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Brand v. Oglesby · filed 2021-09-23(a)

When a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action such as a § 1983 claim, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), so long as the state claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” with the original federal claims. Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, however, there are no allegations stating a colorable constitutional claim under § 1983. Consequently, the Court does not have original jurisdiction. Counts 5 and 6 will also be dismissed.

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

Isom v. Internal Affairs State of Texas · filed 2021-10-04(a)

And without federal jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no claim remains within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Pinson v. Maryland · filed 2021-10-13(a)

Finding no remaining basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court is compelled to dismiss Pinson’s MFEPA claim without prejudice.

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

Loggins v. Hollins · filed 2021-10-14(a)

The Court does not have original jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, and it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because it does not have original jurisdiction over this action.

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

Ellis v. State of California Franchise Tax Board · filed 2021-10-19(a)

Regardless, in the absence of a valid federal claim under the FOIA, the ... Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a possible claim under California law.

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

Anderson v. United States · filed 2021-11-05(a)

The court will dismiss without prejudice Ms. Anderson’s state law claims against Twanda Robinson because, without original jurisdiction over any claim that Ms. Anderson asserted in her complaint, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim only when the civil action also has a basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Flowers, Cornelius v. Medical Directors · filed 2021-11-09(a)

However, for jurisdictional reasons plaintiff’s state law negligence claim is contingent on the viability of his federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (federal district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only where the civil action also provides a basis for original jurisdiction).

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims only when the court has an underlying claim within its original jurisdiction.

(PS) Spears v. Spears · filed 2021-11-23(a)

Unless plaintiff adds a good faith federal claim, the court also cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the apparent state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only if the court otherwise has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.

EUBANKS v. RIDGELINE MOTORS LLC · filed 2021-11-29(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction, however, can only be invoked if the Court otherwise has subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Edwards v. Department of Human Services · filed 2021-12-14(a)

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 the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to address any purported state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint states no federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Trepania, Trent v. Anderson, J. · filed 2021-12-22(a)

Because Trepania has not stated any claims under federal law, the court does not have jurisdiction over Trepania’s lawsuit and I cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) provides no supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff’s other claims have been dismissed.

Southern v. AMain.com, Inc. · filed 2022-05-04(a)

Because Plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed, the Court has no supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's North Carolina wrongful discharge claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Arizona Grain Incorporated v. Barkley Ag Enterprises LLC · filed 2022-01-04(a)

And as Count One is Plaintiffs’ sole claim arising under the Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Roberts v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. · filed 2022-01-11(a)

Further, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ other claims because federal courts “must first have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action” in order to invoke supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jensen v. Rubin · filed 2022-01-12(a)

Third, I cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” But I lack jurisdiction over Jensen’s federal claims against the federal defendants. Thus, I never had original jurisdiction over this action.

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

Bey v. O'Neal · filed 2022-01-13(a)

Finally, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to section 1367. Subsection (a) of that section provides that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The plaintiff has not asserted any claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction before supplemental jurisdiction can attach; in a diversity action, original jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants.

Janney v. NSK America Corporation · filed 2022-01-28(a)

Rather, the term “original jurisdiction” as used in § 1367(a) means that there is complete diversity between all existing plaintiffs and defendants.

Section 1367 cannot alone supply subject matter jurisdiction without an independent basis for original jurisdiction.

Jaiyeola v. Brundage · filed 2022-02-08

Supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 alone cannot provide the basis for subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 11 citing Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 261 F.3d 1065, 1068 n.3 (11th Cir. 2001) and 4 Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3722 (4th ed.)).

Section 1367 provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims asserted as its federal jurisdictional basis.

Markel American Insurance Company v. Islands Marine Center Inc · filed 2022-02-15

The Court finds no basis to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction when incomplete diversity leaves no claim within the court’s original jurisdiction to anchor it.

Ceesay v. Bronx Park Phase III Preservation LLC · filed 2022-02-17

The Court also lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Cervantes v. Byrne · filed 2022-02-24(a)

The court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The court does not need to consider at this time whether Plaintiff’s Complaint states a plausible claim under Nebraska law because, as will be explained below, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In other words, the Complaint’s allegations do not show that the court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over related claims when no claim supplies original federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Hillman v. PacifiCorp · filed 2022-02-28(a)

Because the Court finds no federal claim conferring subject matter jurisdiction as to the Karuk Tribe’s claims,6 it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over those additional causes of action being pursued by the 269 other named Plaintiffs to this lawsuit.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has no claim within its original jurisdiction.

Stallard v. Kelly · filed 2022-02-28(c)

Therefore, the Court may not exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims lacking an independent jurisdictional basis only after federal-question or diversity jurisdiction has been established over a claim.

Humphries v. Newman · filed 2022-03-02

Once a plaintiff has established federal- question or diversity jurisdiction over a claim, a court may invoke supplemental jurisdiction to hear other claims that do not satisfy an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Blackhawk Network Incorporated v. SL Card Company Incorporated · filed 2022-03-09(a)

Because the Court has determined that it lacks original jurisdiction over Blackhawk’s section 256 claims, those claims cannot serve as a jurisdictional anchor for Blackhawk’s breach of contract claims.

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

Monger Family Limited Partnership v. Scully · filed 2022-03-21(a)

Under circumstances such as these—where this court’s original jurisdiction is lacking— the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over MFLP’s state law claims (Counts III and IV) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Roy v. Pioneer Human Services · filed 2022-03-22(a)

Because there was no federal question jurisdiction based on Roy’s causes of action for breach of statutory duty, retaliation, or respondeat superior, the district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction over Roy’s remaining state law...claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PS) George v. Sohal · filed 2022-04-12(a)

Although a federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, this occurs when there also exists a federal claim providing the court with federal question jurisdiction.

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

Debbs v. AM PM Gas Station · filed 2022-05-03(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(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the action.

McArthur v. Nail Plus · filed 2022-05-20(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” Here, I have no basis for original jurisdiction over this action, and thus no basis to extend that original jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against a defendant when the plaintiff asserts no claim against that defendant within the court’s original jurisdiction.

MURPHY v. BOBROW · filed 2022-05-23(a)

Although federal district courts can in certain cases exercise jurisdiction over state law claims between non-diverse parties based on pendent party jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because Plaintiff has not asserted a claim against Defendant Bobrow over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction is inapplicable.

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

Jenkins v. Kellar Williams Group One, Inc. · filed 2022-05-23(a)

Because the Court does not have original jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims only if the court had original jurisdiction over the original claims.

CM and Associates Construction Management Limited Liability Company v. Polcom USA, LLC · filed 2022-06-10(a)

Accordingly, CBWB and Garrison must demonstrate that diversity of citizenship existed between CM&A, Polcom, and CBWB when CM&A’s original complaint was filed, so that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over CBWB’s and Garrison’s claims against each other.

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

Jackson v. Blessing · filed 2022-06-13(a)

Finally, as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Counts One and Two due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court has no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Three.

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

Walters v. LaSalle Corrections · filed 2022-06-21(a)

Accordingly, the Court finds that it does not have supplemental jurisdiction to hear any of Walters’s claims.

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

Devisme v. Center City Housing Company · filed 2022-07-14(a)

Put another way, supplemental jurisdiction can only exist if there are claims for which a district court has original jurisdiction in the first place.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claim supplying original jurisdiction is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

McNeil v. Duncan · filed 2022-07-15(a)

Courts have correctly read that provision’s threshold requirement that a district court “have original jurisdiction” to mean that a district court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if the predicate federal claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—that is, if the claim that initially supplied “original jurisdiction” in the district court is later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when the case includes a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

(PC) Gowdy v. Kern Valley State Prison · filed 2022-07-26(a)

Although a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court may do so only if the case also includes a federal claim that provides the court with original federal jurisdiction.

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

Darwin v. Muncipal Credit Union · filed 2022-09-15(a)

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the FDCPA claims in this action, and therefore also lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related claims of “identity thief” and “invasion of individual and family privacy,” insofar as those statements may be considered to allege state law causes of action.

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

COZATT v. KASSIS · filed 2022-09-16(a)

Since Ms. Cozatt's § 1983 claim is being dismissed, her state-law claims of malpractice and defamation must be dismissed as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (only providing supplemental jurisdiction when courts have original jurisdiction over the action).

Section 1367(a) does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party claim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the primary action.

Vulcan Steam Forging Co. v. A. Finkl & Sons Co. · filed 2022-09-27(a)

Because this Court lacks original jurisdiction over Vulcan’s claim against Finkl, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Finkl’s third-party claim against Carlson and Electralloy.

Section 1367(c) affords no discretion to adjudicate state-law claims when the federal claims fail for lack of Article III standing.

Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Bradrick · filed 2022-09-30(c)

Because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims due to their lack of Article III standing, it has no discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to adjudicate the remaining claims.

Section 1367 gives a district court no discretion to adjudicate state-law claims when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.

Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Anderson · filed 2022-09-30(c)

Because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims due to their lack of Article III standing, it has no discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to adjudicate the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court no discretion to adjudicate supplemental state-law claims when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.

Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Fell · filed 2022-09-30(c)

Because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims due to their lack of Article III standing, it has no discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to adjudicate the remaining claims.

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

Gastelum v. Bain Capital LLC · filed 2022-09-30(a)

The Court agrees with Burlington that it lacked original jurisdiction over Mr. Gastelum’s 12 ADA claim because the claim was moot before the action was filed, and therefore, the Court may 13 not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367 gives a court no discretion to adjudicate supplemental state law claims when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all federal claims.

Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Wise · filed 2022-09-30(c)

However, “if the court dismisses [all federal claims] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it has no discretion” under Section 1367 to adjudicate the plaintiff’s state-law claims “and must dismiss all claims.”

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the asserted federal claim does not establish original jurisdiction.

John Doe 197 v. Bishop of Charleston, The · filed 2022-10-17(a)

Without a valid federal question claim, there is no supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Dickson v. Mitta · filed 2022-10-24(a)

As subject matter jurisdiction has not been established, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims such as plaintiff's m| reference to “Bribery” and “Intentional Tort.”

Section 1367 requires original jurisdiction over a claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related civil claims; federal criminal statutes that create no private right of action cannot supply that basis.

Superior Court of the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act Attorney Selection Committee Superior Court Criminal Rul · filed 2022-11-14(a)

“As a general rule, criminal statutes do not create a private right of action” and thus “cannot be relied upon” to establish the original jurisdiction necessary to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related civil claims.

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

Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership v. City of Middleton · filed 2022-11-22(a)

The court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction if Adams’s complaint presented a federal question, but here it cannot because Adams brings exclusively state-law claims and none of those claims are exclusively governed by federal law.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a related counterclaim when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the primary claim.

PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Stuber · filed 2022-11-23(a)

Nor is the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim appropriate given that the court has found it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (district court has supplemental jurisdiction over related claims “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.

Russell v. Killian · filed 2022-11-23

When an Article III court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it “must dismiss the complaint in its entirety,” including any pendent state-law claims over which it might otherwise exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Flinders v. State Bar of California · filed 2022-12-05(a)

As federal jurisdiction is lacking, there ... claims are also dismissed.

Section 1367(a) cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction over related claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the lead claim.

Patriot Industrial LLC v. Patriot Partners LLC · filed 2022-12-06(a)

Notwithstanding Patriot-Buyer’s previous judicial determination defense, this Court equally rejects Patriot-Buyer’s supplement jurisdiction claim. ... However, there is no jurisdiction over the lead claim because Patriot-Buyer is wholly owned by HKA Holdings, and HKA Holdings’ principal place of business is South Carolina.

Section 1367 requires original jurisdiction over the removed claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

City of Galveston v. Porretto Case remanded to (Galveston Municipal Court, Galveston, Texas).</font · filed 2022-12-07(a)

But to exercise § 1367 jurisdiction, this court must first have original jurisdiction over the removed claim.

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

Dolores Huerta Foundation v. Panama-Buena Vista Union School District · filed 2022-12-08(a)

Further, Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed because it is derivative of Plaintiffs’ moot Section 2 claim, and Plaintiffs’ state claims, as set forth in the Second Cause of Action, must be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction over either of Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

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

Pagaling v. Napa State Hospital · filed 2023-01-04(a)

Accordingly, this action must be dismissed because the Court has no power to retain supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires an original-jurisdiction anchor claim before a district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Holley, Jr. v. Matos · filed 2023-01-04(a)

Without a federal anchor claim, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider state-law tort claims (and of course it cannot prosecute state criminal cases). See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (providing for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims “in a civil action [where] the district courts have original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim joined with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; an inadequately pleaded federal claim did not support the state-law claim here.

Chumbley v. Gashinski · filed 1997-11-19(a)

This state claim, however, must be joined with a claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Because this Court ultimately finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled their federal § 1983 action, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be GRANTED as to any vicarious liability claim arising out of State law.

A plaintiff may pursue a state-law claim under supplemental jurisdiction without citing § 1367 in the complaint.

Toro v. Gainer · filed 2005-04-20

But plaintiff also brings this action under Illinois law, and therefore states a claim even though he does not invoke supplemental jurisdiction by citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not require a plaintiff to expressly plead supplemental jurisdiction or label a claim as arising under state law when that basis is obvious.

Voyticky v. Timberlake · filed 2005-06-22

Plaintiffs do not need to specifically plead the supplemental jurisdiction statute, nor do they need to specifically identify state law claims as such if the cause of action obviously exists under state law.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claims are not so devoid of merit as to vitiate that jurisdiction.

Alternate Fuels, Inc. v. Cabanas · filed 2006-01-23

It is enough to determine, as we do, that the federal claims are not so devoid of merit as to vitiate supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim in this case.

Section 1367 allows state law claims to proceed when the federal claims supplying original jurisdiction remain before the district court.

Cuvo v. De Biasi · filed 2006-02-14

Because our decision revives the basis for original jurisdiction, Cuvo’s state law claims, including his claims for malicious prosecution and negligent infliction of emotional distress, are once again properly before the District Court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law counterclaims when a federal claim is properly before the court.

Esso Standard Oil Company (Puerto Rico) v. Carlos E. Rodríguez-Pérez · filed 2006-07-28(a)

The RCRA claim was properly before the magistrate judge, and there was supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaims.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when a minimally colorable federal due process claim supplies an independent basis for federal-question jurisdiction, even though another federal claim is unripe.

Urban Developers LLC v. City of Jackson MS · filed 2006-10-24(a)

In this case, however, the plaintiffs have stated a minimally colorable federal claim of deprivation of property without due process, invoking this court’s federal question jurisdiction and providing an independent basis for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state takings claims.

Section 1367 can be invoked by pleading a local-law claim without expressly citing the statute.

Payne v. Fawkes · filed 2014-11-03

Plaintiffs’ pleading in this regard was sufficient to invoke supplemental jurisdiction even without a specific cite to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a related federal Privacy Act claim remains pending.

Majid v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2017-03-28(a)

... the Court will not dismiss the Privacy Act claims against the FBI, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as the FBI concedes in its Motion.

Section 1367 requires a federal claim to which a related state law claim can attach for supplemental jurisdiction.

BAKER v. ESTES · filed 2019-08-15(a)

... federal claim, there is no federal claim to which the state law claim would be related for purposes of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PC) Yakini D. Byrd v. Razo · filed 2020-08-17(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 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PC) Angel v. California Correctional Health Care Services · filed 2021-05-11(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 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the plaintiff first states a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Sekona v. Perez · filed 2021-10-06

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 does not require a complaint to expressly plead supplemental jurisdiction.

Gargoyle Granite & Marble, Inc. v. Opustone, LLC · filed 2021-11-22

Section 1367’s enactment imposed no new express pleading requirement.

A party seeking supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim under § 1367 must invoke that jurisdiction.

Reid v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-03-28

Because “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction,” the Plaintiff would need to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when there is a cognizable federal claim for relief.

(PC) White v. Krantz · filed 2022-11-21(a)

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 Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims fail.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over related nonfederal claims when the court has original jurisdiction over a claim, but a party seeking it must invoke that basis and establish that exercising it is appropriate.

Gault v. McIntosh · filed 2023-04-11(a)

Plaintiffs, however, have not invoked Section 1367(a) as a basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction over their non-federal claims.

Section 1367 does not permit a plaintiff to litigate state-law claims in federal court without a cognizable federal claim.

Jones v. Stigdon · filed 2023-05-18

He may be trying to assert a state law negligence or wrongful death claim against Ms. Stigdon, but without a cognizable federal claim, he cannot litigate such claims in federal court.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim when no cognizable federal claim arising from the same facts has been pleaded.

Beilgard v. City of Coffman Cove · filed 2025-08-18

A federal court cannot establish jurisdiction over a claim brought under Alaska statutory and constitutional provisions unless a plaintiff has first pleaded a cognizable claim for relief under federal law arising from the same set of facts or events.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint states no viable federal claim.

Ohan · filed 2025-10-21(a)

A state law claim may only proceed in federal court if the claim is supplemental to a cognizable federal claim,12 or if the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the case.13 Because Plaintiff has not stated any viable federal claim against Defendants, and the Complaint does not demonstrate that there is diversity jurisdiction, the Complaint must be dismissed.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim without an express citation to the statute when the complaint’s allegations give notice of that claim.

Nicholson v. Durant · filed 2025-12-18(a)

But whatever clearly pleaded allegations are necessary to allow a district court to assert supplemental jurisdiction absent an explicit reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the allegations in this case suffice. Here, as discussed above, the allegations set forth in Nicholson’s complaint sufficed to put Durant on notice that a claim was proceeding against him in his personal capacity.

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

Yee · filed 2026-03-24(a)

Furthermore, without a valid federal claim, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Yee’s remaining state-law negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed when efficiency and economy of resources favor retention.

Lamont v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. · filed 2008-08-07(c)(3)

While the Lemon Law claim was still alive, it did not matter whether the Court had original jurisdiction over the Magnu-son-Moss claim since it could assert supplemental jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, I conclude that the better course here is to retain jurisdiction and proceed to address the Magnuson-Moss claim. Considering the fact that the Court clearly has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim, and its original jurisdiction is only uncertain and not clearly lacking, and also the fact that the parties have already briefed the Magnuson-Moss issue, I conclude that the interests of efficiency and economy of resources warrant the exercise of discretion in favor of retaining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) supplies no basis for supplemental jurisdiction when the complaint fails to state a claim under the only federal law invoked.

RILEY v. CHRISTUS HEALTH, DOING BUSINESS AS CHRISTUS GOOD SHEPHERD MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2023-01-18(a)

Having found that the complaint is insufficient to establish any claim under EMTALA, the only federal question before the Court, there is no basis to apply supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 requires an independent basis for original jurisdiction before a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims.

Macias v. Mission Linen Supply · filed 2023-02-10(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.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims when the court lacks original jurisdiction over the action.

Hatfield 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

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

Seeing as the Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

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

Seeing as the Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Bowen 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) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when the court has no claim within its original jurisdiction.

Reding v. John Fabick Tractor Company · filed 2023-03-28(a)

Federal district courts may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims which are so related to those supporting original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). As the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the issue of Reding’s unused vacation days, there are no claims in this case over which it has original jurisdiction. Indeed, the Court reads Reading’s complaint as one, cohesive Count: Reading’s references to his unused vacation days stand as evidence of his overall claim for retaliation. Therefore, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reding’s claim for retaliation, and this case must be remanded in its entirety to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.

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

Sims v. Kahrs Law Offices, P.A. · filed 2023-03-31(a)

However, if the court has dismissed the claim in which it had original jurisdiction due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this court lacks such discretion to hear supplemental claims and “must dismiss the supplemental claims without prejudice.” See Estate of Cummings v. United States, 651 F. App'x 822, 828 (10th Cir. 2016), as clarified on reh'g (June 24, 2016) (citing Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 379 F.3d 1161, 1167 (10th Cir. 2004)). Therefore, this court cannot retain jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not independently establish subject-matter jurisdiction over state and local claims when the complaint pleads no federal claims.

von der Schmidt v. Higgins · filed 2023-04-24(a)

In fact, Plaintiffs state that the “Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related claims under state and local law under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).” Id. But as Plaintiffs do not plead any federal claims, the only basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is Section 1332.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction when the asserted claims provide no basis for original federal jurisdiction.

Nicklis v. Howard County Department of Social Services · filed 2023-06-07(a)

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

Section 1367(a) requires an independent basis of federal jurisdiction over a claim in the action before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Garnes v. Encova Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 2023-06-28(a)

Furthermore, this court is precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining claims, as the defendants point to no alternative font of federal jurisdiction for any matter arising in this civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Ralston Outdoor Advertising Ltd v. City of Dallas · filed 2023-07-26(a)

Accordingly, the Court lacks original subject-matter jurisdiction over Ralston’s alternative constitutional claims, which also forecloses supplemental jurisdiction over Ralston’s state law claim.

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

Kemp v. Ekstein · filed 2023-07-31(a)

But because he has not alleged a constitutional violation in this federal case, the court does not have original jurisdiction, so it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims against Doe or Barkhurst.

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

Ghaznavi v. De Longhi America, Inc. · filed 2023-08-02(a)

Because the Court lacks original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s MMWA claim, it also lacks supplemental jurisdiction over his related state-law claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks diversity or federal-question jurisdiction over the action.

Womack v. Memphis Mental Health Institute · filed 2023-08-04(a)

Since Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing diversity or federal-question jurisdiction for this action, the Court may not assert supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

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

Davis v. WVU Medicine/Camden Clark Medical Center · filed 2023-08-14(a)

This argument fails because the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction without first having original jurisdiction (i.e., diversity or federal question jurisdiction).

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the asserted basis for original jurisdiction is a federal question and the complaint presents none.

Independence RV Sales & Services, Inc v. Mejias · filed 2023-08-31

However, pursuant to section 1367, a court must first have federal question jurisdiction before it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. As explained supra, the instant Complaint does not present a federal question.

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

Paul v. Plank · filed 2023-09-27(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) only allows federal courts to entertain claims over which they do not have original jurisdiction where the court has original jurisdiction over at least one claim.

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

Perry v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2023-10-27(a)

As a result, if a federal district court lacks original jurisdiction, it has no discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over any related claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no viable claim provides original federal jurisdiction.

Healy v. Supreme Court of South Dakota · filed 2023-12-14(a)

Because Plaintiffs have no viable federal claim, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, Claims 2, 3, and 4.

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

Bellini Condominium Association, Inc. v. Village of Bal Harbour, Florida · filed 2024-01-25(a)

The Court has already determined that Plaintiff has failed to establish federal-question jurisdiction and constitutional standing as to Count II. As such, Count I’s state-law ordinance claims must be dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when there is no plausible basis for original jurisdiction.

Clark v. Villilio · 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 provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint lacks a plausible basis for original jurisdiction.

Clark v. CVS Health Pharmacy, Inc. · 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 does not permit a court to retain a state-law claim when it lacks original jurisdiction over every claim in the case.

Rodriguez v. Rozlin Financial Group, Inc · filed 2024-01-26

Without Plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over any part of this case and so will remand Plaintiff’s ICFA claim too, which the Court has no reason to keep.

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

Thomas v. Osmer · filed 2024-01-29(a)

Because Luke has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

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

Miller v. Catholic Charities · filed 2024-02-20(a)

Thus, supplemental jurisdiction does not apply.

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

Charles v. Times-Mirror · filed 2024-03-18(a)

The allegations in the complaint also fail to establish any basis for jurisdiction under § 1367. ... Here, there is no federal claim, which negates the possibility of there being a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Williams v. Ritenour · filed 2024-03-25(a)

Because the complaint does not appear to present a sufficient basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction,6 the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s numerous state-law claims ... and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims only if the court also has original jurisdiction over another claim.

Lamb v. Pleasant Prairie Police Department · filed 2024-04-10(a)

The court can exercise “supplemental” jurisdiction over such state-law claims only if the plaintiff also has brought claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.

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

Richmond v. Weise · filed 2024-04-26(a)

Richmond has neither alleged federal causes of action nor established diversity jurisdiction, so this Court does-not have original jurisdiction over any claim against Backyard Specialty and cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any others.

Section 1367(a) requires diversity or federal-question jurisdiction over at least one claim before a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Rywelski v. Biden · filed 2024-05-01(a)

But supplemental jurisdiction exists only when the district court has diversity or federal-question jurisdiction over at least one claim. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Because the district court correctly determined that it lacked both diversity and federal-question jurisdiction, no basis existed for supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Janine Angel v. Marten · filed 2024-05-29(a)

Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Angel’s federal law claims, it properly dismissed Angel’s state law claim. See Herklotz v. Parkinson, 848 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2017); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Pestana v. State of Hawaii, Department of Education · filed 2024-06-28(a)

If this Court had federal question jurisdiction over at least one of Pestana’s claims, this Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Chapter 388 claims. ... Because all of Pestana’s federal law claims have been dismissed with prejudice, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Chapter 388 claims, and those claims must also be dismissed with prejudice in the instant case, but without prejudice to the pursuit of such claims in the proper forum.

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

Clark v. Williams · filed 2024-07-09(a)

Without a plausible basis for original jurisdiction in any of her cases, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise pendant jurisdiction over her claims arising under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009).

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

Bensouna v. E11Even Miami, Inc. · filed 2024-07-17(a)

The Court accordingly cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) does not apply to claims over which the court has original diversity jurisdiction.

Crotts v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2024-08-06(c)

Neither Gibbs nor Section 1367 applies in this setting—where a court has original jurisdiction premised on diversity.

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

Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District v. Imperial Valley Healthcare District · filed 2024-08-19(a)

As an initial matter, and contrary to IVHD’s first argument, the Court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Petitioner’s state-law claims even if it wanted to. Presuming the other requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) are met,20 district courts may invoke supplemental jurisdiction only when there is “a hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang it.” Herman Fam. Revocable Tr. v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 1367(a) does not prohibit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court has original jurisdiction over the federal claims, even if those claims fail on the merits.

Brook v. Ruotolo · filed 2024-08-23(a)

As already explained, the district court erred in concluding that it lacked federal question jurisdiction over Adam’s section 1983 claims, so its conclusion that section 1367(a) prohibited it from exercising supplemental jurisdiction was likewise erroneous.

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

Bate v. Securly, Inc. · filed 2024-08-23(a)

Finally, there is also no basis for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, as there is no “hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang it.”

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

VILLANOVA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE · filed 2024-09-17(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction cannot exist in the absence of jurisdiction to hear Villanova’s FTCA claims.

Section 1367 cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction unless the case has an initial, independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Kidis v. Christopher J. Trainor, P.C. · filed 2024-10-11(a)

But if a case lacks an initial, independent basis for jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction is inapposite.

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

Victory v. Bank of America · filed 2024-10-15(a)

Second, Plaintiff cannot bring his claims under NRS 41.130 here in federal court because he has not alleged a basis for this Court’s diversity or federal question jurisdiction over this case. As a result, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Darling v. Sise · filed 2024-10-25(a)

There are no viable federal claims in this action. Thus, supplemental jurisdiction does not apply.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over local claims when the court lacked original subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Honore v. USDA Rural Development · filed 2024-10-30(a)

However, if a court never possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claim, then that claim did not arise within the court’s original jurisdiction; therefore, any remaining local claims would not have the jurisdictional hook necessary to permit supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Stewart v. Bishop · filed 2024-12-09(a)

As discussed above, the Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the supplemental jurisdiction statute is inapplicable because Plaintiffs has not alleged a claim to which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Olson v. Wyche · filed 2024-12-26(a)

Because the Court does not have a basis for original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims.

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

Siddique v. I.Q. Data International, Inc. · filed 2025-01-31(a)

Plaintiff's ICFA claims are also dismissed without prejudice, as the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction means it has no authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to adjudicate Plaintiffs claims brought under state law.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims only when a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction anchors them.

Martin v. Tewalt · filed 2025-02-03(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to claims over which the court is exercising original jurisdiction that “they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

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

VLSI Technology LLC v. Patent Quality Assurance, LLC · filed 2025-02-13(a)

Because PQA has not met its burden of establishing that this Court has original jurisdiction over VLSI’s state law abuse of process claim, see Abraham, 2011 WL 1790168, at *1, and because it improperly attempts to assert jurisdiction under VLSI’s fraud claim, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Nair v. Titan Towing · filed 2025-02-14(a)

Plaintiff fails to establish diversity or federal question jurisdiction and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim that comprise the vast majority of his claims.

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

West v. Aggressor Adventures LLC · filed 2025-04-02(a)

Yet, supplemental jurisdiction can only be exercised in a case where the Court has “original jurisdiction,” which Plaintiff fails to establish here.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks original subject-matter jurisdiction.

WILSON v. WILSON · filed 2025-04-23(a)

However, because the Court does not have original subject-matter jurisdiction,6 it may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction only when at least one claim independently supports federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Hanson v. Jeff Schmitt Auto Group · filed 2025-05-01(a)

Having found that neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction provide valid subject matter jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff's claims, supplemental jurisdiction cannot exist and all claims must be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over related claims only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the civil action.

AuCopious, LLC v. SPG14, LLC · filed 2025-05-12(a)

However, only “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction” do courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all other related claims.

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

Piedrabuena v. Jaffe & Asher LLP · filed 2025-05-27(a)

The Court accordingly cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction only in civil actions over which a district court has original jurisdiction.

Richardson v. Board of Education Of Elgin School District U-46 · filed 2025-06-18(a)

Having dismissed all federal claims against the Board of Education, the Court is without federal subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (providing district courts with supplemental jurisdiction only in civil actions over which district court has original jurisdiction).

Section 1367 does not provide jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the court has neither a stated federal claim nor diversity jurisdiction.

Bonner v. BroadStep-Wisconsin · filed 2025-06-18(a)

The plaintiff’s remaining claims arise under state law, specifically Wisconsin’s administrative code. Because the plaintiff has not stated a claim under federal law, the court must dismiss those claims because it lacks jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction over the action; it does not independently support removal.

Bigfoot Ventures, LTD v. Knighton · filed 2025-06-18(a)

Clearly, the Court must have original federal jurisdiction over an action before it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim.

Hudson v. Gerson · filed 2025-06-25(a)

And when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim, then it has no basis for asserting supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim only when it is related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Ortiz v. Skilonger · filed 2025-06-26(a)

This court may not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this claim unless plaintiff has also asserted a related claim over which the court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1331 or 1332.

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

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC v. PECK · filed 2025-07-08(a)

But supplemental jurisdiction does not exist independently of federal jurisdiction.