28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Dominick v. Marcove · filed 1992-12-31(c)(3)

I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims if plaintiffs’ federal claim has been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1990). Because I dismissed plaintiffs’ only federal claim I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after it dismisses the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

McCullough v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., Inc. · filed 1993-09-30(c)(3)

The court finds that § 1367(c)(3) applies to the present case, because the court has dismissed the only claim within its original jurisdiction, the plaintiffs federal Rehabilitation Act claim. The court further finds that the word “may” in § 1367(c)(3) requires the court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state claims.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims when the only federal claim has been dismissed.

George K. Price, Harry L. Schuman and Sharon Rosen, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. FCC National Bank, Defendan · filed 1993-08-18(c)(3)

Nor did the district court err in dismissing the plaintiffs’ state-law claims, since the only federal claim over which it had jurisdiction was properly dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(1).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal claims after the sole federal claim has been dismissed.

Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Compania Naviera Perez Companc (In Re New York Trap Rock Corp.) · filed 1993-11-16(c)

In addition to Judge Schwartzberg’s reasons for rejecting Lone Star’s nonfederal claims, his decision should also be affirmed on the ground that exercise of supplemental (previously known as pendent) jurisdiction over them should be declined under criteria set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) once the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 363(n) has been dismissed.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims against a defendant even when the sole federal claim against that defendant has been dismissed, if a federal claim against other defendants remains and no statutory exception applies.

Marc Development, Inc. v. Wolin · filed 1993-12-01(a)

This court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Wolin, provided these claims are adequately pled, despite the fact that the sole federal claim against him has been dismissed. ... The state law claims at issue here arise out of the same case or controversy as the federal claim and they do not fall under any of the exceptions listed in § 1367(c). Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after resolving the only federal claim.

D.C. Transportation Services, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · filed 1994-05-16(c)(3)

Summary judgment is denied on the state claims in Counts I and III, which counts are dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice to plaintiffs right to assert those claims in the appropriate state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after it resolves the only federal claim.

Mark v. Borough of Hatboro · filed 1994-06-30(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is being granted to each defendant as to the only federal claim, this Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the pendant state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3) (Supp.1993).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after it dismisses the sole federal claim.

Battye v. Child Support Services, Inc. · filed 1994-11-30(c)

And as we have dismissed the sole federal claim present in Battye’s complaint, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and instead remand the case to the Circuit Court of DuPage County.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses the only federal claim as time barred.

Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft · filed 1994-12-05(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) permits the court to so decline jurisdiction when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Since, as noted above, Falik’s only federal claim is time barred, there is no sound reason for the court to exercise jurisdiction over his pendant state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit a court to adjudicate related state-law claims once the sole federal claim is found nonactionable and only state-law issues remain.

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission · filed 1994-12-30(a)

This court may validly assert jurisdiction over pendent state law claims when such claims “are so related to claims" brought under the original jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the court has found that Deputy Sheriff Hancock is entitled to qualified immunity and the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause is not actionable. As a result, the only remaining issues are those arising under Alabama law. Therefore, this court may not adjudicate this action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Village of Orland Hills · filed 1995-06-14(c)(3)

Since plaintiffs’ single federal civil rights claim is dismissed, the court refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II through IV as requested by Brink. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Tomiser v. Board of Trustees · filed 1995-06-19(c)(3)

After dismissing plaintiff’s only basis for Federal jurisdiction, his § 1983 claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits me to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Singleton Ex Rel. Smith v. Board of Education USD 500 · filed 1995-06-29(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs § 1983 claim, the only claim over which the court has original jurisdiction, is being dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims which plaintiff may have asserted.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Hoban v. USLIFE Credit Life Insurance · filed 1995-08-29(c)(3)

As we have dismissed the sole federal claim, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, we decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Mungiovi v. Chicago Housing Authority · filed 1995-09-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claim over which we have original jurisdiction, we also decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over Mungiovi’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claims.

Park v. Jack's Food Systems, Inc. · filed 1995-11-20(c)(3)

In light of the fact that I have dismissed the only federal claims asserted against defendants, I decline to exercise that jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Reynolds v. Condon · filed 1996-01-02(c)(3)

Here, the case now stands in the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3): the district court has dismissed the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Fink v. Gonzalez · filed 1996-01-08(c)(3)

Finally, we observe that because we have dismissed the only count over which we had original jurisdiction, we need not exercise supplement jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim in count two. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over count two, and dismiss that count without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Caremark Inc. v. Coram Healthcare Corp. · filed 1996-01-03(c)(3)

After dismissing the only count of Caremark's complaint over which I have original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Caremark's state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the only federal claim against the defendant.

D'AGOSTINO v. New York State Liquor Authority · filed 1996-01-30(c)(3)

The only federal claim against Paul having been dismissed, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim against him.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when the remaining claims are not inextricably linked to it.

Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers, Inc. · filed 1996-05-18(c)

Because the sole federal claim in this matter will be dismissed, ... and the remaining claims are not inextricably linked to the dismissed claims, the court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it dismisses the only federal claim.

Villasenor v. Industrial Wire & Cable, Inc. · filed 1996-06-13(c)(3)

In addition, because we have disposed of the only federal claim and diversity of citizenship is not alleged, we relinquish our supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count II. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the only federal claim.

Freund v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc. · filed 1996-05-28(c)(3)

The only federal issue pending in this litigation has been disposed of and the Court believes that this state law issue is best left to the courts of Georgia. The Court declines to retain discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the sole federal claim when no other basis for federal jurisdiction is pleaded.

McIntosh v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center · filed 1996-10-10(c)(3)

In addition, because this Court is dismissing plaintiffs sole federal claim and no other basis for federal jurisdiction has been pleaded in the complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent claim under section 296 of the New York State Executive Law, and accordingly this claim is dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the sole claim within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Harrell v. City of Chicago Heights, Ill. · filed 1996-11-01(c)(3)

Because this was the only claim over which the court had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in Counts I and II. ... Therefore, the court finds that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity justify retention of the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to retain related state law claims after the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Indian v. Palmer · filed 1997-05-05(c)(3)

Although our affirmance of the district court's ruling with respect to S 81 eliminates the sole federal claim conferring original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1331, the district court has discretion to hear the remaining state law claims at issue.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to hear remaining state law claims after dismissal of the sole federal claim.

Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine · filed 1997-05-05(c)(3)

Although our affirmance of the district court's ruling with respect to § 81 eliminates the sole federal claim conferring original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district court has discretion to hear the remaining state law claims at issue.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after disposing of the only federal claim.

Health Cost Controls v. Bichanich · filed 1997-07-01(c)(3)

Having disposed of the only federal claim in this suit, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over HCC’s common fund doctrine claim.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the sole federal claim is resolved, but exercising that jurisdiction is discretionary.

Rose v. Baystate Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1997-11-25(a)

Of course, in the absence of such jurisdiction, the Court may still exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The exercise of that jurisdiction, however, is discretionary.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the only federal claim is dismissed before trial.

Lopez-Soto v. Hawayek · filed 1997-12-31(c)(3)

Nevertheless, where, as here, the only existing federal claim warrants dismissal prior to trial, the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after it grants summary judgment on the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Marsili v. Arlington Heights Fire Department · filed 1998-01-13(c)(3)

Because the court has granted summary judgment on Count I, the only claim court has granted summary judgment on Count I, the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II, IV, and V pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Compton v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs · filed 1998-02-17(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed Compton’s sole federal claim prior to the parties expending any substantial time in discovery on this claim, I will decline to assume supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims so as to best serve the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Polite v. Button · filed 1998-04-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court in its discretion hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Production Resource Group, L.L.C. v. Stonebridge Partners Equity Fund, L.P. · filed 1998-05-22(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiffs sole federal claim, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over those state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after it disposes of the only federal claim.

Black v. Barberton Citizens Hospital · filed 1998-06-02(c)(3)

Because pendent jurisdiction is principally associated with federal question jurisdiction, where the existence of a federal claim supports jurisdiction of a pendent state claim, disposition of the federal claim allows the district court to exercise its discretion to allow any unresolved state claims to be heard in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims (Counts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII) and remands those claims to the state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims against a defendant after dismissing the only federal claim against that defendant.

DeWitt v. Lieberman · filed 1999-01-13(c)(3)

As I have dismissed the only federal claim against Parks, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state and local claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Durso v. Kentucky Ass'n of Counties, Inc. · filed 1999-01-22(c)(3)

Lastly, because Durso’s only federal claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim before trial when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Szucs v. Committee of Interns and Residents · filed 1999-02-08(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses plaintiffs sole federal claim in advance of trial, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity strongly counsel that the Court remand plaintiffs remaining state law claims to the state court from which this action was removed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Wilson v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Warehousemen · filed 1999-03-17(c)(3)

Having disposed of the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction, however, I decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Gandelman v. Aetna Ambulance Service, Inc. · filed 1999-05-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claim, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing the only federal claim.

Gardiner v. Town of Fairfield · filed 1999-05-14(c)(4)

Having dismissed the only federal claim, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and we dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them to state court after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Potter v. Shoney's, Inc. · filed 1999-07-16(c)(3)

The court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), Plaintiffs remaining state law claims shall be remanded to the state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed well before trial.

Maday v. Toll Bros. Inc. · filed 1999-10-18(c)(3)

As the sole federal claim has been dismissed well in advance of trial, it would be imprudent to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Prosser v. Francoeur · filed 2000-01-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs’ only federal claim, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claims.

Steinert v. Winn Group, Inc. · filed 2000-01-27(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed plaintiffs only federal claims (contained in Count IX), it does not assert supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it grants summary judgment on the only federal claim and finds no affirmative justification to retain the state claim.

Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co. · filed 2000-03-17(c)(3)

The Court concludes that no affirmative justification to retain jurisdiction over the state law claim is present in this case. Because the Court is granting summary judgment as to the only federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim and to dismiss those claims without prejudice for refiling in state court.

Hawks v. Jones · filed 2000-06-15(c)(3)

However, given the fact that the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs only remaining federal claim, there is no independent basis for continued federal court jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. Therefore, as to all of the remaining claims against Defendant Robinson as well as all of the state law claims against Defendants Reese and Jones, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d), the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims against all three Defendants in Counts III, V and VI, and his assault and battery claim against Defendants Reese and Jones in Count IV without prejudice in order to allow Plaintiff to re-assert these claims in an action filed in the appropriate state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the only federal claim when no substantial proceedings have occurred and the equities do not favor retaining them.

Lain v. Evans · filed 2000-06-30(c)

Since the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, no proceedings of substance have been conducted in this court, and the equities do not weigh in favor of retaining the state claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s additional claims when the court dismisses that plaintiff’s underlying federal claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd. · filed 2003-01-17(a)

When the District Court dismissed the foreign plaintiffs’ underlying federal antitrust claim on jurisdictional grounds, it had no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at all over the foreign plaintiffs’ foreign law claims.

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

Lopez v. Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. · filed 2009-09-28

In addition, if a district court dismisses the sole federal claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1), it is precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to hear a negligence claim tied to a federal claim within its original jurisdiction; dismissal of the federal claim at the outset leaves the court without jurisdiction over the negligence claim.

Spencer v. the District of Columbia · filed 2010-06-11(a)

This court may hear a negligence claim against these defendants only if it also has original jurisdiction over a factually intertwined federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because the § 1983 federal claim must be dismissed at the outset, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the claim that supplied original jurisdiction.

Genops Group LLC v. Public House Investments LLC · filed 2014-09-16(c)(3)

When, as here, the state-law claim providing the Court with diversity jurisdiction has been dismissed, the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state-law claims. ... The Court concludes this is a “usual case.” Therefore, in light of the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against PIP, there is no reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s separate claim against PHI that fails to independently satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the claim supplying original jurisdiction is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Stark v. Tryon · filed 2016-03-22

The Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction because a removal-conferring claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds may not serve as a jurisdictional hook.

Section 1367 requires an anchor claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; a single state-law claim cannot support supplemental jurisdiction.

McDonald v. Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. · filed 2016-09-07(a)

Nor is there supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which requires an anchor claim over which the court has or had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental claims when the claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed.

Ruloph v. LAMMICO · filed 2021-02-11(c)(3)

Because this Court is dismissing the claim over which it is has original jurisdiction, the claims over which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction will be dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Keating v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 660 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (8th Cir. 2011).

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff lacks Article III standing on the federal claim.

Strojnik v. W2005 New Century Hotel Portfolio LP · filed 2021-02-26(a)

Strojnik lacks standing to proceed in this Court, and this Court consequently has no authority to retain jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims after the action supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed.

Purple Innovation v. Advanced Comfort Technologies · filed 2021-09-28(a)

Because the court dismisses Purple’s action, it no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over Advanced Comfort’s counterclaims.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports sending state-law tort and fraud claims to state court when the federal court finds neither diversity nor federal-question jurisdiction.

Smith v. Novoa · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

Because the Court finds no federal diversity or federal question jurisdiction, to the extent that Smith seeks to bring a claim for tort or fraud under state law, she must pursue that claim in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when the complaint states no federal claim.

Hill v. Wollenhaupt · filed 2024-02-05(c)

However, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing original-jurisdiction claims on substantive grounds, but not when those claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Saksenasingh v. Secretary of Education · filed 1997-10-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. s 1367, which governs supplemen- tal jurisdiction, the District Court may, at its discretion, continue to entertain supplemental jurisdiction even after it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdic- tion." 28 U.S.C. s 1367(c)(3). If the District Court had original jurisdiction, but dismissed for non-jurisdictional rea- sons, then it could maintain supplemental jurisdiction at its discretion. If it dismissed the underlying claim on jurisdic- tional grounds, then it could not exercise supplemental juris- diction.

When the patent infringement claim supplying original jurisdiction is dismissed for lack of standing, the district court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law contract claim.

Textile Productions, Inc. v. Mead Corporation and Fiber Trim Sewing Company · filed 1998-03-24(c)(3)

Upon dismissal of the patent infringement claim for lack of standing, the district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction to consider the contract claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to terminate a state-law claim when no basis for original jurisdiction remains.

Moran v. Clarke · filed 2002-07-05(c)(3)

Without continuing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 1332, the district court had broad discretion to terminate the state claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

St. Ledger v. Area Cooperative Educational Services · filed 2002-07-25(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over St. Ledger’s emotional distress claim on the ground that it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state claim after it dismisses the claim supporting original jurisdiction.

Amari v. Radio Spirits, Inc. · filed 2002-09-12(c)(3)

Mr. Amari argues that I have supplemental jurisdiction over the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but because I decline to exercise my jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim, I dismiss the pendent state claim as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have all been dismissed, but that ground is unavailable for a defendant with surviving federal claims.

Gausvik v. Perez · filed 2002-09-16(c)(3)

With regard to defendants Badgley, Tilly, and City of Wenatchee, this court could also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against them on the basis that it is granting summary judgment to them on all of the claims (§ 1983 claims) over which this court has original jurisdiction. The court cannot use that reasoning with regard to Perez because the court is retaining jurisdiction over some of the § 1983 claims against Perez.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Roark v. Humana, Inc. · filed 2002-09-17(c)(3)

Section 1367(3) allows a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after it has disposed of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ferguson v. Leiter · filed 2002-09-18(c)(3)

Nonetheless, given that the instant action is predicated upon the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and all federal claims have been disposed of, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the sole remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction when it has dismissed all other claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Tucker v. Darien Board of Education · filed 2002-09-26(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Connecticut state law claims ... on the ground that it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction in the same action; a federal claim in a separate action cannot support supplemental jurisdiction.

Batistatos v. City of Hammond · filed 2025-07-31(a)

When the action contains no claims over which the court has federal question jurisdiction, there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

In Re Crystal Brands Securities Litigation · filed 1994-09-07(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs have not stated a claim under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

In Re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation · filed 1995-12-15(c)(3)

However, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendant state claim “if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ... Accordingly, plaintiffs’ state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

In Re Suprema Specialities, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 2004-08-26(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed, the Court, in its discretion, will not maintain jurisdiction over the state law claims. They too are dismissed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

In Re Acterna Corp. Securities Litigation · filed 2005-07-26(c)(3)

Because the court will dismiss the claims over which it has federal question jurisdiction, and does not have any other basis for exercising original jurisdiction, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

In Re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc. Securities Lit. · filed 2002-06-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. As such, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim for common law fraud, and that claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with federal trademark claims because both require interpretation of the same agreement and consideration of the events leading to its termination.

North American Van Lines, Inc. v. Atlantic Transfer & Storage Co. · filed 2007-04-11(a)

Hence, the trademark infringement claims and the breach of contract claim both require the court to interpret the Agreement and to consider the series of events leading to the termination of the Agreement. The court finds that these claims are therefore part of the “same case or controversy” and derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when a federal trademark claim supplies original jurisdiction.

Gronk Nation, LLC v. Sully's Tees, LLC · filed 2014-04-04(a)

Furthermore, the issue of federal trademark law confers jurisdiction on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction will be denied.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Mycoskie, LLC v. Ebuys, Inc. · filed 2017-12-06(c)(3)

The Court had original jurisdiction over Mycoskie's trademark infringement claim, and therefore, it has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that "form part of the same case or controversy" even after the trademark claims were dismissed.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims connected to a surviving federal claim by a common course of conduct and related contracts.

Catch 26, LLC v. LGP Realty Holdings LP · filed 2018-04-17(a)

In hght of this risk, the broad reach of the cross-default provision, and the timing of the defendants’ actions, this Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that derive from the same operative facts as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ross v. Jenkins · filed 2018-05-23(a)

Those state law claims derive from the same operative facts as the federal claims. The court thus has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims under § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state tort claim sufficiently related to a federal claim to form part of the same case or controversy.

Andrade v. Teichroeb · filed 2018-10-24(a)

The Court, having considered the briefing submitted addressing this jurisdictional dispute, is of the opinion Plaintiff has carried her burden of establishing the existence of supplemental jurisdiction over her state law tort claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims sufficiently related to federal claims.

Ryan v. Salisbury · filed 2019-05-14(a)

The Court finds, however, that federal jurisdiction is proper in this matter because the Complaint asserts federal claims against all defendants and because the state-law claims are sufficiently related to the federal claims as to make the Court's assumption of supplemental jurisdiction appropriate.

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

(PC) Mefford v. Bhutia · filed 2019-08-06(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PC) Newsome v. Loterzstain · filed 2019-08-08(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Joiner v. Mississippi Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-05(a)

These arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact” such that a plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” For this reason, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the central facts of those claims are also central to a related federal claim.

Kreger-Mueller, Valerie v. Shiner, Justin · filed 2019-09-09(a)

This means that I can hear both federal and state-law claims when the central facts of the federal claim are also the central facts of the state-law claim.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that stems from the same conduct as the federal claims.

Robinson v. Pintez · filed 2019-09-10(a)

Because the state law claim, alleging a violation of Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, stems from the same conduct described in Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims, the Court FINDS that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that substantially overlap with a surviving federal claim.

Mill Street Partners, LLC v. City of Newburgh · filed 2019-09-10(a)

Having denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the FHA claim, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mill Street’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The facts under Mill Street’s FHA and state law claims substantially ovrlap.

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

(PC) Kendrid v. Forester · filed 2019-10-08(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

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

(PC) Hamilton v. Wong · filed 2019-10-09(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PC) Hollis v. Bal · filed 2019-11-27(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims sharing a sufficient factual connection with a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Gakuba v. Henderson · filed 2020-01-07(a)

Gakuba’s state claims share a sufficient factual connection with his federal claim, and thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(a) permits state-law claims that are so closely related to the federal claims that they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Manafov v. Rosario · filed 2020-02-10(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence claims arising from the same alleged failures to provide medical and dental care as surviving federal deliberate-indifference claims.

Montgomery v. Wellpath Medical · filed 2020-02-10(a)

These state law negligence claims will be allowed to proceed under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that directly relates to federal claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Jones v. Poinsett County Housing Authority · filed 2020-02-19(a)

And the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over her state claim, which directly relates to her federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits inclusion of state-law claims so closely related to federal claims that they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Muhammad v. Barber · filed 2020-03-20(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law workers’ compensation retaliation claim asserted alongside a civil RICO claim arising from the same employment termination.

McGhee v. High Mountain Health LLC · filed 2020-04-21(a)

The court overseeing the Third Action would have had supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 had it been asserted in conjunction with McGhee’s civil RICO claim.

Section 1367(a) permits state-law claims in an amended complaint when they are so closely related to the federal claims that they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Chillis v. Neuschmid · filed 2020-04-22(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims so closely related to federal claims that they form the same case or controversy.

(PC)Haygood v. Newsom · filed 2020-04-22(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits inclusion of state-law claims so closely related to the federal claims that they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Ausborn v. CHCF · filed 2020-04-23(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to hear state-law claims arising from the same events as federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

DUNN v. CITY OF FORT VALLEY · filed 2020-05-19(a)

It is well established that federal courts may consider state-law claims through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims arise from the same events as federal claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. ... Since, as discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Mr. Dunn’s federal claims, the Court likewise DENIES Defendants’ Motion as it pertains to Count VII.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim related to a federal claim in the same case.

Torres v. Rothstein · filed 2020-05-20(a)

But because Torres’ FHA claim is a federal one and related to her FHL claim, I exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Ingram v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2020-05-26(a)

As to his claim of negligence/medical malpractice, however, Ingram’s claims derive from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim, and he will be allowed to proceed at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that concern the same facts as federal Section 1983 claims.

Anthony v. Baldwin · filed 2020-06-25(a)

Anthony’s state law claims in Counts 3 and 6 concern the same facts as his Section 1983 claims. Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

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

(PC) Daniels v. Baer · filed 2020-07-08(a)

This Court has federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims which arise out of the same factual allegations as his federal claims.

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

Sims v. Wexford Medical · filed 2020-07-15(a)

Plaintiff’s medical negligence claim in Count 2 derives from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim and will be allowed to proceed at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law assault and battery claims arising from the same conduct as a federal claim.

Wilson v. Eagelton · filed 2020-08-05(a)

Therefore, the Sixth Cause of Action’s claims for assault and for battery are not dismissed as to Sims. The Court, moreover, retains jurisdiction over them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy[.]”).

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

(PC) Chubbuck v. Brown · filed 2020-08-19(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state securities claims when they are commingled with alleged federal law violations.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rust Rare Coin · filed 2020-08-20(a)

The court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the related violations of Utah securities laws (see Compl. ¶¶ 92- 108), because those claims are commingled with the alleged federal law violations.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal claims that arise from the same bundle of operative facts as federal claims.

Xanthakos v. City University of New York · filed 2020-08-24(a)

The non-federal claims, at least at this juncture, all appear to arise from the same bundle of operative facts as the federal claims. Accordingly, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the non-federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with federal civil-rights claims.

Glaze v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2020-09-11(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Glaze’s Public Records Act Claim 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); the claim is linked directly to Mr. Glaze’s civil rights claims and derives from a ... common nucleus of operative fact; and, permitting the claim to proceed in this Court serves the interests of judicial economy.

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

(PC) Bradford v. Gee · filed 2020-09-18(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PC) Hill v. CDCR, Department of State Hospitals · filed 2020-09-29(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely to his federal allegations that “the form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PC) Prince v. Ramsey · filed 2020-09-29(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PC) Montez v. Jones · filed 2020-09-30(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim under original jurisdiction when the relevant factors do not warrant declining jurisdiction.

Landaverde v. Kinkisharyo International, L.L.C. · filed 2020-10-06

All causes of action advanced by the Complaint share a common nucleus of operative facts related to Plaintiffs’ employment. See Dkt. 1-1. Based on the current posture of the action, the relevant factors do not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over the non-preempted state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so related to federal claims that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Allen v. Tewalt · filed 2020-10-07(a)

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

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

Raj v. Dickson City Borough · filed 2020-10-14(a)

In this case, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Raj’s state law claims because Defendants’ actions form part of the same case or controversy and it would be expected that all of the claims would be tried in one judicial proceeding.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same operative facts as a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Williams v. Jeffreys · filed 2020-11-02(a)

Where 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). Plaintiff's allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

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

Wooten v. Panos · filed 2020-11-23(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that arises from the same facts as a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Roberson v. Armstrong · filed 2020-11-30(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action such as a Section 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). Because Plaintiff's negligence claim derives from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment claim, this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

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

(PC) Mitchell v. Cory · filed 2020-12-16(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(PC) Duque v. Ryan · filed 2021-01-11(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Hall v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2021-03-11(a)

The state law claim in Count 6 concerns the same facts of the Section 1983 claims, so supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

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

(PC) Rouser v. Khripach · filed 2021-03-30(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form .. the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the same facts as a surviving federal claim.

Sims v. Thompson · filed 2021-03-31(a)

Because Count 1 for deliberate indifference survives against Harris and Demsar, Plaintiff may also pursue his state law negligence claims against these two Defendants based on the same facts underlying Count 1.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that derives from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Stewart v. Jeffreys · filed 2021-04-12(a)

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

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim, even when the federal claim is later dropped.

Rios v. Pinnacle Mira Mesa L.P. · filed 2021-04-21(a)

Accordingly, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law assault and battery claims related to a federal excessive-force claim.

Mason v. Farrakhan · filed 2021-04-26(a)

The Court will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mason’s state-law claims of assault and battery against Farrakhan.

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

Ruiz v. Taranovich · filed 2021-05-05(a)

Moreover, because the claims for assault and battery arise out of the same set of facts as Ruiz’s Eighth Amendment claim, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim related to a viable federal claim; when the corresponding federal claim is dismissed, the state claim cannot proceed on that basis.

Ingram v. Cunningham · filed 2021-05-11(a)

However, a state law claim may only proceed in federal court under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction if it is related to a viable federal constitutional claim. ... Because the deliberate indifference claim in Count 1 will be dismissed, the negligence claim in Count 2 no longer shares a factual basis with a claim that will proceed in this action.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same facts as plausible federal claims, while allowing a court to decline claims raising a novel or complex issue of state law.

Orellano v. Papoosha · filed 2021-05-25(c)(1)

Because Plaintiff asserts state law claims that derive from the same factual predicate as his plausible First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s plausible state law claims that do not raise a novel and complex issue of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” that “raised a novel or complex issue of State Law....”).

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

SLATER v. YUM YUM'S 123 ABC · filed 2021-05-28(a)

Here, we can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Slater’s state law claims because they relate to her FLSA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim arising from the same incident as a surviving federal claim.

Bolen v. Philemon · filed 2021-06-01(a)

The Court will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina negligence claim against Defendant Philemon.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law battery claims related to § 1983 excessive force claims when the court has original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Dowdy v. Shelby County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-06-07(a)

This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. So it also has supplemental jurisdiction over his battery claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims against all defendants when a federal claim remains and the claims arise from the same case or controversy.

KBS PHARMACY, INC. v. PATEL · filed 2021-06-09(a)

As the CFAA claim remains against at least one defendant, this court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims as to all defendants.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims arising from the same series of transactions as a viable federal claim.

Energizer, LLC v. MTA Trading, Inc. · filed 2021-06-16(a)

Because Plaintiff has stated a federal claim under the Lanham Act, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claims, which arise from the same series of transactions.

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a viable federal claim.

Harmon v. Uintah Basin Medical Center · filed 2021-06-21(a)

However, because Plaintiff has plausibly pleaded an EMTALA claim and sufficiently alleged that his state law medical malpractice claim arises from the same facts as his EMTALA claim, the court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claim.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same underlying event as a federal claim.

Macias v. Fasail · filed 2021-07-01(a)

Because these state law claims stem from the same underlying event as Plaintiff’s federal claim— Defendants’ ownership of a restaurant which allegedly does not permit access by people with disabilities such as Plaintiff — the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim related to a surviving federal claim.

Cromartie v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety of Prisions · filed 2021-07-28(a)

The Court will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina negligence claim against Defendant Hardin.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim arising from the same series of transactions as a surviving federal claim.

The Brooklyn Union Gas Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation · filed 2021-08-12(a)

Because Plaintiff has stated a federal claim under CERCLA, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claim under New York Navigation Law, which arises from the same series of transactions.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that derives from the same operative facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

McGraw v. Peeks · filed 2021-08-16(a)

Because Plaintiff's allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims in Counts 1 and 2, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so related to federal claims that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Asamoah v. Amazon.com Services, Inc. · filed 2021-08-17(a)

The remaining two state law claims fall under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction because they are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law negligence and malpractice claims closely related to claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Staten v. Buchanan · filed 2021-08-25(a)

At this stage, it appears that Staten’s negligence and medical malpractice state law claims are closely related, so the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits continued supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims arising from the same allegations as surviving federal claims.

Khwaja v. Jobs to Move America · filed 2021-09-01

Because the Court denies dismissal of Khwaja’s claims of sex-based discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, it will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Khwaja’s sex-based claims under the NYCHRL, which arise from the same set of allegations.

Section 1367(a) permits state-law allegations that form the same case or controversy as the federal allegations.

(PC) Williams v. Hurlbert · filed 2021-09-08(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share operative facts with a surviving federal claim.

Schrader v. Emporia State University · filed 2021-09-21(a)

And plaintiff’s state law claims revolve around the same set of operative facts as his federal claims: the investigation into complaints of sexual harassment against him and the eventual end of his employment with ESU. This means the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Kansas state law claims under § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same operative facts as a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Lee v. Stover · filed 2021-09-22(a)

Where 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). Lee’s allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) allows a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to federal claims by the same alleged conduct when they form the same case or controversy.

Moran v. Samaan · filed 2021-09-28(a)

Regarding the state law claims made by Plaintiff against Dr. Samaan, these claims may be appropriately brought in federal court so long as the state claims are so related to the federal law claims that they create the “same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Plaintiff’s state law claims against Dr. Samaan and the entity defendants — battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and invasion of privacy — are so related to the same alleged conduct by the same Defendants as described in Plaintiff’s federal claim. The claims implicate the employment relationship and matters that allegedly occurred during and after Plaintiff’s tenure. The interests of judicial economy, efficiency and fairness to the litigants outweigh the federalism concerns present. Therefore, this Court can and will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims intimately related to surviving federal claims and arising from the same facts.

CTI Development, LLC v. Citigroup Inc. · filed 2021-10-13(a)

Because these state law claims are intimately related to CTI’s surviving CERCLA claims and arise from the presence of the same slag pile, the circumstances justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to viable federal claims.

The Courtland Company, Inc. v. Union Carbide Corporation (Courtland II) · filed 2021-10-22(a)

In light of the Court’s conclusion that UCC has alleged viable federal claims under CERCLA, supplemental jurisdiction over UCC’s related state-law claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.