28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 permits a court to hear a related state-law claim when a federal claim is pending in the same case.

Goodwin III, Julius v. Dane County Jail · filed 2021-11-30(a)

Yet this court cannot review state law claims unless it relates to a federal claim pending in the same case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, or plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Ellis v. Goodheart Specialty Meats · filed 2023-03-20(a)

Because the Texas Workers’ Compensation and negligence claim stems from the same facts that give rise to the discrimination and retaliation claims, this Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to federal claims and arising from the same facts.

White v. University of Washington · filed 2023-03-22(a)

And the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that are related to and derive from a common set of facts that support the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Falcon v. Koenig · filed 2023-03-28(a)

Lastly, the Court shall take supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims derived from a federal claim.

Sheets v. Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan · filed 2023-03-31(a)

The additional state law claims are subject to supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as they are derived from Sheets’s ERISA claim.

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

Devillaz v. Atmosphere Gastropub, Inc. · filed 2023-05-12(a)

Because the Plaintiff’s FLSA claim arises from the same set of operative facts as his state-law claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Brady v. Illinois Department of Corrections · filed 2023-06-02(a)

As with Count 6 above, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides for supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim, which is based on the same facts as Plaintiff’s federal claims.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that arises from the same facts as a claim within the court's original jurisdiction.

Saffold v. Fuller · filed 2023-06-09(a)

Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that is “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] 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). Because the facts that underlie the plaintiff’s claim of medical malpractice and negligence are the same as those that underlie his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims against Dr. Fuller.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims that are so related to an FLSA claim that they form part of the same case.

Aguirre v. Custom Image Pros LLC · filed 2023-06-28(a)

This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Aguirre’s state law claims, under both the AMWA and the AWA, are so related to his FLSA claim that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over NYLL wage claims arising from the same underlying facts as FLSA claims.

Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2023-07-07(a)

I further determine that it is appropriate for me to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Twelve Unionized Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims.

Toby v. Gennette · filed 2023-07-10(a)

Because the court finds that the state law claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims, supplemental jurisdiction over Toby’s state law claims is proper.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Nichoel Hill v. Hunt · filed 2023-07-13(a)

Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s: ... (5) exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the Hills’ related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Gallipeau v. State Law Enforcement Division · filed 2023-07-14(a)

The magistrate judge concluded that “because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim, ‘the entire case met the criteria for removal,’ . . . [as] the asserted state law causes of action are so related to the federal cause of action that they form part of the same case or controversy, [allowing] the Court [to] exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).” Id. at 7 (quoting Stewart v. North Carolina, 393 F.3d 484, 490 (4th Cir. 2005)). ... Having thoroughly reviewed the Report, the applicable law, and the record as it pertains to this motion, and noting that the parties have opted not to object to this portion of the Report, the court finds no error or basis for deviating from the magistrate judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 9) be denied.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim related to claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gill v. Teigen · filed 2023-08-03(a)

That said, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) allows a federal court to exercise “supplemental” jurisdiction over state law claims that are “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Because the court is allowing the plaintiff to proceed against Teigen and Schubart, and because his claims against them include allegations that they defamed him, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claim of defamation.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims sufficiently related to a surviving federal EMTALA claim.

Torres-Rios v. Dorado Health, Inc. · filed 2023-08-04(a)

Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claims are “so related” to their surviving EMTALA claim. Accordingly, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico law causes of action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when the facts supporting it are the same as those supporting a federal claim.

Sales v. Johnson · filed 2023-08-08(a)

Because it appears that the facts that would support a claim of negligence are the same as the facts that give rise to his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims.

Marcus v. Howard · filed 2023-08-10(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c) (“§ 1367(a)”), a district court may exercise jurisdiction over a claim based on state law where a claim is so related to a § 1983 claim that they form part of the same case or controversy if the court finds such claim does not present a novel question of state law, doesn’t predominate over the federal claim, or if the court has not dismissed all federal claims. Here, the undersigned is recommending that Plaintiff’s federal § 1983 claims not be dismissed, but, rather, the court exercise jurisdiction of the § 1983 claims and that Defendants’ requests for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment be granted as to these claims. Thus, the court has not dismissed such claims. See Forbes v. City of Rochester, 612 F.Supp.3d 159, 171-172 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (allowing amended complaint to allege, inter alia, state claim for assault and battery as supplemental to plaintiff’s 1983 claims). Therefore, it is recommended that the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(a) over Plaintiff’s assault and battery and conversion claims.

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

Haire v. Burns · filed 2023-08-15(a)

Plaintiff may also proceed with a supplemental state law negligence claim against Burns, Stanrec, Westra, Penigar, Burgett, and Reynolds arising out of the same facts. See 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Section 1367(a) permits related state-law negligence claims to proceed when they arise from the same facts as federal constitutional claims.

Richardson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2023-08-15(a)

Plaintiff’s claims in Counts 3 and 4 that Defendants were “neglectful” or negligent derive from the same facts as his federal constitutional claims and will proceed at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim arising from the same alleged conduct as a cognizable federal claim.

Comundoiwilla v. Diaz · filed 2023-09-12(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim that the actions of Defendants were negligent.

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

REINIG v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A. · filed 2023-09-15(a)

The Court has jurisdiction over those claims, which raise a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the corresponding state law claims given how closely related they are, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

David v. Tesla Inc. · filed 2023-11-20(a)

Further, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, which include claims of negligence, defamation, and breach of contract. This is because a review of David’s Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) confirms that the federal and state law claims arise out of his employment at Tesla and arise out of the same facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state assault and battery claims arising from the same facts as a federal excessive force claim.

St. Louis v. Bodin · filed 2023-11-29(a)

The Court will also permit state common law claims for assault and battery arising from the same set of facts to proceed against Officer Bodin in his individual capacity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits related state-law claims to accompany a federal claim, but without a federal claim to anchor them, a federal court cannot hear the state-law claims alone.

Staples v. Bonner Co. Medical and Jail Staff · filed 2023-12-14(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.” A plaintiff may bring “all state and federal claims ordinarily expected to be tried in one judicial proceeding.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). However, without an Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment medical claim to anchor a state claim in federal court, this Court cannot adjudicate state law negligence or medical malpractice claims by themselves, and those claims must be brought in state court.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence as federal claims.

N. v. NORTH BURLINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2023-12-29(a)

And because the state law claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the federal claims, this Court would have supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a California Public Records Act claim sufficiently related to claims within federal-question jurisdiction.

Prevedello v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2024-01-08(a)

The Court is persuaded by the line of cases finding, that as a “court of competent jurisdiction,” it may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's CPRA claim, which is sufficiently related to his federal claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to claims within its federal question jurisdiction.

Firsov v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2024-02-05(a)

Because the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal law claims, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state tort claims when the court has original jurisdiction over federal claims.

Katchatag v. State of Alaska · filed 2024-02-29(a)

The requirements for both federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state tort claims were met at the time the removal notice was filed in federal court.

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

Randall v. Bradley · filed 2024-03-21(a)

As Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and infliction of emotional distress all derive from the same facts as his Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are directly related to federal claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Industria de Diseno Textil, SA v. Zara Academy LLC · filed 2024-04-08(a)

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Zara’s state claims for trademark dilution under Washington law, unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”), and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition under principles of pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims are directly related to its federal claims.

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

United African-Asian Abilities Club v. Ng · filed 2024-04-23(a)

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

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

Braden v. Benton · filed 2024-04-26(a)

When a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, 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). As Plaintiff’s allegations of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress all derive from the same facts as his Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Hernandez v. Pride Auto Wrecking And Sales Inc. · filed 2024-04-29(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state negligence, assault and battery claims related to the same alleged conduct as federal claims.

Jeffery v. Cole · filed 2024-04-30(a)

The plaintiff claims that the defendants’ actions amounted to negligence and assault and battery under Wisconsin state law. The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as they related to the plaintiff’s OC spray and hand-cuffing allegations. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

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

Swafford v. Simmons · filed 2024-05-13(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 against Defendant Dr. Simmons derive from the same facts as his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Defendant Dr. Simmons.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to cognizable federal claims.

Perez v. Macias · filed 2024-05-21(a)

Lastly, the court shall take supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Weaver v. Kupferer · filed 2024-05-22(a)

Plaintiff’s medical negligence claim against Kupferer and Faulkenberry derives from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim and may proceed against these defendants at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Harrison v. Auto Detail Supply Pros · filed 2024-05-24(a)

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

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim closely related to a federal claim.

Maldonado v. NG Liquor, Inc. · filed 2024-06-03(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the same facts as a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Lipscomb v. Wills · filed 2024-06-04(a)

Here, the potential state law claims for assault and battery are based on the same facts as Lipscomb’s excessive force claim against Lt. Blake. Thus, supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law tort claims that share an underlying occurrence with federal wage claims.

Lara v. West Loop Maid · filed 2024-06-14(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court may only exercise 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 under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Moreover, the agreement for Lara to live and work in Welnowska’s house is the underlying occurrence of both Lara’s wage and tort claims after February 25, 2020. For these reasons, the claims are properly before the Court under pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims related to surviving federal claims, but not over a state claim concerning a separate issue.

(PC) Tillman v. State of California · filed 2024-06-18(a)

This court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims provided that they “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). Claim 4 for battery against Drake is clearly related to the case at issue, as is Claim 6 for intentional infliction of emotion distress against Drake and Nardy. On the other hand, Claim 5, alleging failure to summon timely medical care, concerns the collection of rape kit evidence and does not relate to the federal claims going forward. In sum, state-law Claims 4 and 6 may go forward against defendants Drake and Nardy, while state-law Claim 5 is subject to dismissal.

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

Marquise Bailey v. Gonzalez · filed 2024-06-24(a)

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

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

Yeong Lee v. Magnolia Plaza At Fountain Valley LLC · filed 2024-06-25(a)

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

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims.

Storm v. McClusky · filed 2024-07-09(a)

Because the allegations here all involve a “common nucleus of operative fact,” id., the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as a proceeding federal claim.

Stark v. Yanez · filed 2024-07-11

The Court will retain jurisdiction over the claims against Miller under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claims against Yanez in his individual capacity are proceeding, see filing 23, and those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the state law claims against Miller.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state medical malpractice claim accompanying a federal medical care claim.

Gonzalez v. English · filed 2024-08-15(a)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim under Wisconsin state law.

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

Villalobos v. CS Motorwerks, Inc · filed 2024-08-16(a)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law medical malpractice claim, but the court did not allow that claim to proceed without a federal claim against a medical defendant.

Sweet v. Higgins · filed 2024-08-23(a)

Although the court could exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s putative state law claim of medical malpractice, see 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), the court is not allowing the plaintiff to proceed on federal claims against any medical defendant. Because the plaintiff has not stated a federal claim against any medical defendant, he may not proceed on any related state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims concerning temporary disability benefits when the court has federal jurisdiction over claims concerning a separate disability plan.

SANCHEZ v. METLIFE, INC. · filed 2024-09-03(a)

Finding these recommendations to be free of clear error, the Court ADOPTS Section II(C)(iv) of Judge Hammer’s Report and Recommendation, which found that the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims regarding temporary disability benefits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to claims within its original jurisdiction.

Spencer, Heru v. The Church of Prismatic Light · filed 2024-09-04(a)

This case involves claims that arise under federal law, as well as related state-law claims. Accordingly, this court has subject matter jurisdiction authority over all of the claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (describing supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same facts as a federal claim that proceeds.

Robinson v. Hinninger · filed 2024-09-13(a)

Robinson’s claims for medical malpractice arise from the same facts as his federal claim against Robertson. Because the Court is proceeding Robinson’s claim of denial or delay of medical care against Robertson, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s state law claims for medical malpractice.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to claims within a federal court’s original jurisdiction.

Doe 1 v. Gupta · filed 2024-09-30(a)

There is no question that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides for subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims and that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ related state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same facts as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

McCauley v. Ransbottom · filed 2024-10-17(a)

Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that is “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] 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). There is no federal claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. But this claim may be raised under state law. Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress are the same as those underlying his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that derive from the same factual allegations as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Lipscomb v. Wills · filed 2024-11-14(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Lipscomb’s state law claims derive from the same factual allegations as his federal claims. Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008) (a loose factual connection between the federal and state claims is generally sufficient). Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lipscomb’s claims in Counts 3 and 4.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court with original jurisdiction over a federal claim to hear a related state law claim arising from the same facts.

Beasley v. Franklin · filed 2024-12-09(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Beasley’s state law claims derive from the same factual allegations as his federal claims. ... Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count 2.

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

Richardson v. Hughes · filed 2024-12-13(a)

Because Count 3 derives from the same facts as Plaintiff’s federal excessive force claim, it will also proceed against Smith. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that shares a factual basis with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Cox v. Jeffreys · filed 2024-12-19(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Cox’s state law claims derive from the same factual allegations as his federal claims. Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008) (a loose factual connection between the federal and state claims is generally sufficient). Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count 2.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over sufficiently related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Helton v. Whitley County Fiscal Court · filed 2025-01-07(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims since they are sufficiently related.

Section 1367 gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kukaj v. Town of Eastchester · filed 2025-01-23(a)

In addition to original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over all related state law claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence as federal claims before it.

Yamamoto v. Office of Inspector General · filed 2025-02-10(a)

Any state-law claims Yamamoto brings, including claims for defamation, arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Yamamoto’s federal law claims. So the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

JOHNSON v. JORDAN · filed 2025-02-10(a)

This Court will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims of assault and battery.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims sufficiently related to claims within their original jurisdiction.

Tatchi v. TransUnion LLC · filed 2025-02-11(a)

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s state-law claims are sufficiently related to the federal claims to give rise to supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim premised on the same alleged misstatements as the federal claims.

Kirk v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Holdings Inc. · filed 2025-03-10(a)

In any event, because Kirk’s common-law fraud claim is premised on the same alleged misstatements as his federal claims, the district court clearly had supplemental jurisdiction over that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Wilkerson v. Maurer · filed 2025-03-14(a)

The allegations of medical negligence derive from the same facts as the federal constitutional claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

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

Willis v. US Bank Trust National Association · filed 2025-04-07(a)

Accordingly, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Willis’s related state law claims.

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

Hall v. Wills · filed 2025-04-15(a)

Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim is based on the same facts underlying the constitutional claim in Count 3. Therefore, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Davenport v. Baker · filed 2025-04-30(a)

Because Plaintiff’s state law claim for assault and/or battery arises from the same facts that give rise to his federal constitutional claims, this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 5.

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

Muhammad v. PNC Financial Services · filed 2025-05-06(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Muhammad’s state-law claims to promote judicial economy and because they also arise from his dispute with PNC.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same operative facts as the federal claims.

Johnson v. Hart · filed 2025-05-14(a)

Plaintiff’s state law claims arise under the same operative facts as his constitutional claims. Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Counts 8, 9, and 10.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim closely related to a federal claim because both arise from the same allegations.

WALKER v. RICHIE · filed 2025-05-16(a)

At this stage, it appears that Mr. Walker's negligence claim is closely related to his Eighth Amendment claim because both claims are based on the same allegations—Mr. Richie's alleged breach of his duty to report his knowledge of a planned attack on Mr. Walker, which caused Mr. Walker seriously bodily injury. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, and the claim SHALL PROCEED.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim related to claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sibley v. Meridian Wildlife Services, LLC · filed 2025-05-20(a)

The Court also concludes that it has pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as the claim is related to the federal law claims.

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

Molano v. Melisse · filed 2025-06-13(a)

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations satisfy the statutory requirement. Accordingly, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Schroll v. Wilson · filed 2025-07-07(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims since they are sufficiently related to the federal claims in this case.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same set of common operative facts as a federal claim.

Cross v. Plaskey · filed 2025-07-18(a)

Additionally, at this early stage of the litigation, Plaintiff may also proceed with supplemental state law medical malpractice and negligence claims arising from the same set of common operative facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that arise from the same facts as federal claims.

Sanders v. Taylor · filed 2025-07-21(a)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Sanders’s state law claims derive from the same factual allegations as his federal claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a plausible federal claim and allows courts to decline claims raising novel or complex state law issues.

Dorlette v. City of Stamford · filed 2025-07-23(c)(1)

Because Plaintiff asserts state law claims that derive from the same factual predicate as his plausible Fourth Amendment claims, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims that are plausible and that do not raise a novel and complex issue of state law.

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

Chambers v. Copeland · filed 2025-07-28(a)

A federal court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as the federal clams, but a plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

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

Johnson v. Doe · filed 2025-08-11(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional district because it is related to the federal claims.

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

Raphiel v. Pitchford · filed 2025-08-12(a)

Accordingly, the court has original jurisdiction over the federal law claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim interrelated with federal constitutional claims.

Martin v. Xiong · filed 2025-08-22(a)

As an initial matter, because Martin is proceeding on several federal constitutional claims and those claims are interrelated with his defamation claim, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligent-failure-to-protect claim related to a federal failure-to-protect claim.

Walker v. Espin · filed 2025-08-29(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to a claim within its original jurisdiction when they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

TAILLARD v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC · filed 2025-09-03(a)

And, jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims stems from the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, which provides that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, [they] 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); see also United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966) (providing that the constitutional “case or controversy” standard confers supplemental jurisdiction over all supplemental claims arising from a “common nucleus of operative fact” as the federal claims). MBUSA’s Motion is therefore due to be denied insofar as it seeks dismissal based on a lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as federal claims when there is no cause to decline that jurisdiction.

Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' Local 9 Pension Trust v. Moosh Inc. · filed 2025-09-09(a), (c)

Further, while Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against Defendant does not arise under federal law, it is “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). Accordingly, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against Defendant, and the Court finds no cause to decline to exercise this jurisdiction. Id. at §§ 1367(a), (c).

Section 1367(a) allows a court hearing federal claims to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Martin v. Mielcarek · filed 2025-09-12(a)

Because Martin is proceeding on several federal constitutional claims, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his purported state law claims to the extent they are related to his federal claims.

Section 1367 allows a federal court to hear state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Green · filed 2025-10-22

When a plaintiff alleges violations of state statutory or common law in federal court, the federal court may hear and decide those state-law claims only if the plaintiff also has alleged claims over which the federal court has diversity or federal question jurisdiction and the state-law claims are “so related” to the diversity or federal question claims that “they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Section 1367(a) permits related state-law claims to proceed alongside federal claims when they arise from the same facts.

Rumsey · filed 2025-11-13(a)

Plaintiff’s claims for medical negligence in Count 4 and negligence in Count 5 derive from the same facts as his federal constitutional claims in Count 2. Because Count 2 will proceed against Defendants Arora, Myers, and Reuter, the state law medical negligence and negligence claims will also proceed against Arora, Myers, and Reuter for the conduct described in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) allows a federal court to hear a related state-law claim alongside federal claims.

Murphy v. Brixworth Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2025-12-02(a)

The district court thus had authority to hear these federal-question claims and had supplemental jurisdiction over his related breach-of-contract claim under state law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a).

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

Scotland · filed 2025-12-11(a)

Moreover, while Plaintiff’s complaint raises claims under state law—specifically, breach of contract and negligence—all three of Plaintiff’s claims derive from the same facts: Defendant’s handling of the allegedly unauthorized charges on Plaintiff’s credit card. See Compl. at 5-6. This Court may, therefore, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and need not remand the case to Virginia state court.

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

Hall · filed 2026-02-02(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it arises from the same facts giving rise to his federal claims.

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

Buford · filed 2026-02-04(a)

The alleged conduct for which the plaintiff states Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and medical care claims may also amount to negligence claims. The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

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

Hughes · filed 2026-04-24(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the state claims “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Although the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over both claims, neither survives screening.

Section 1367(a) permits a state-law assault and battery claim to proceed with a federal excessive force claim when both arise from the same facts.

Brown · filed 2026-05-01(a)

Because the assault and battery claim arises from the same facts as the excessive force claim, Count 2 shall also proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see also Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as claims already before the court.

ZoomInfo Technologies LLC v. ZenLeads Inc. · filed 2026-05-06(a)

The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, involving Delaware’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and tortious interference with prospective business advantage, because all claims arise out of the same facts and judicial efficiency favors trying the claims in one judicial proceeding.

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

Sanders · filed 2026-05-06(a)

The Illinois state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) (Count 5) and negligence (Count 6) arise from the same facts that give rise to the constitutional claims in Counts 1 through 4. As such, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Mrdjenovich · filed 2026-06-09(a)

The allegations derive from the same facts as the federal constitutional claim, so this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the medical negligence claim against Defendant Taylor.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Thomason v. Norman E. Lehrer, P.C. · filed 1998-10-27(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Thomason’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims that share a factual connection with federal claims.

Clark v. The City of Atlanta · filed 2022-09-29(a)

Their state-law claims all shared a factual connection with those federal claims and thus, supplemental jurisdiction extended to the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within their original jurisdiction.

Monce v. Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2018-04-02(a)

The court did not discuss supplemental jurisdiction, which provides district courts with 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). TTA claims are routinely decided by federal courts in conjunction with other claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Johnson v. Advanced Air Solutions Inc. · filed 2020-04-30(a)

Furthermore, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over Johnson’s state law claims because these claims arise from a “common nucleus of operative facts” as the federal claim.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law and contract claims.

Amazon.com Inc v. Awns · filed 2024-07-02(a)

The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction ... over Plaintiffs’ related claims for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) and Amazon’s breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same operative facts as a surviving federal claim.

Presnick v. Santoro · filed 1993-08-05(a)

Since defendants have provided no reason to believe otherwise, this court will for these purposes, and without prejudice to a later application that is fully briefed, assume that the unbriefed state law claims are not remote from or unconnected with the § 1983 claim that survives, ... but rather “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and are such that the plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” ... Thus this court retains jurisdiction over these state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and cannot, in this respect, grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state negligence claims related to federal claims when they arise from the same conduct.

Bergen v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2022-01-13(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 claims arise from the same conduct as his Eighth Amendment and ADA claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to federal claims arising from the same events.

Grady v. Rogers · filed 2022-01-20(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina assault and battery claims against Defendants Eubanks, Grooms, Hamilton, Kiker, Knox, Martin, and McSheehan; and negligence claims arising out of the alleged failure to provide medical care by Defendants Burns, Dorlando, Eubanks, Keziah, Knotts, Martin, Philemon, and Purser.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims while federal claims remain pending.

McFarland v. Housing Authority of Racine County · filed 2022-01-24(a)

As long as these claims remain pending, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-court claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to a federal claim within its original jurisdiction.

BECKWITH v. BLAIR COUNTY · filed 2022-01-28(a)

Here, the Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against PrimeCare, and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims under § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same operative facts as a federal claim; claims that do not relate to the federal claims lack that connection.

Webb v. Busey · filed 2022-02-02(a)

A district court has discretion over whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same set of operative facts that supports a federal claim. ... Further, Plaintiff’s state law claims do not appear to relate to the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are sufficiently related to a claim under federal law.

Mortland v. NAFFAH Investments, LLC · filed 2022-02-24(a)

Because the remainder of the claims, that arise under state law, are so related to Mortland’s claim under the ADA, this Court will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims contained in the first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim related to a federal claim that survives initial review.

Torres v. Dye · filed 2022-03-02(a)

Therefore, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the § 19 claim against Defendant Moss at this time.

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

Williams v. Bentz · filed 2022-03-07(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 claims arise from the same conduct as his First Amendment claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state constitutional due process claim when the federal claim survives initial review.

Carmona v. Union County Sheriffs Office · filed 2022-03-07(a)

Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina Constitution due process claims against these Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims sufficiently related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction to form part of the same case or controversy.

Faulkner v. York School District 1 · filed 2022-03-07(a)

The court may properly hear Plaintiffs’ state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction since these claims are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that . . . it form[s] part of the same case or controversy . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Jones, Leroy v. Foster, Brian · filed 2022-04-21(a)

Therefore, the court will grant that request. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[D]istrict courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all 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.”). For the same reasons that Jones’s allegations support deliberate indifference claims against defendants Shaw, Laning, Althrawy, White, Statmueller, Syed, Garcia, Koenig, Sullivan, Ramirez, Birkholz, Staehler, and Thompson, Jones may pursue negligence claims for those same events.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law false arrest or false imprisonment claim sufficiently related to federal claims.

Lewis v. Illinois · filed 2022-04-21(a)

The false arrest/false imprisonment claim in Count 6 arises under Illinois state law and is sufficiently related to the federal claims to warrant exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. 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) Coleman v. California Department of Corrections · filed 2022-05-12(a)

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

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

Controls Southeast, Inc. v. QMax Industries, Inc. · filed 2022-06-22(a)

Plaintiff has shown that the state law claims are sufficiently related to Plaintiff's Lanham Act claim such that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same transactions or occurrences as the federal claims.

Ash Jr. v. Reynolds · filed 2022-07-06(a)

The Illinois medical malpractice claim in Count 3 arises from the same transactions or occurrences as Count 3, so the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share the same nucleus of facts with surviving federal claims.

L.P. v. Wake County Board of Education · filed 2022-07-18(a)

In this case, the state law claims and the federal claims, which the Court has not dismissed, rely on the same nucleus of facts. Accordingly, defendants! 12(b)(1) arguments in their motions to dismiss are denied.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with the original federal claims.

Anthony v. Jeffreys · filed 2022-07-27(a)

This Court retains 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 Page 6 of 9 the original federal claims.

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

Berkadia Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Wadlund · filed 2022-08-09(a)

The state law claims, including the state trade secret claim under the AUTSA, arise from the same core of operative facts as the trade secret claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are related to pending federal claims, even when the federal claim against the state law defendant has been dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim.

Shade v. United States Department of the Interior · filed 2022-08-16(a)

In short, plaintiff’s state law claims against Chaney are related to the federal claims such that the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims against Chaney.

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

(PC) Montgomery v. Moreno · filed 2022-08-19(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(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so related to federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy, including related claims supported by adequately pleaded federal claims.

Sanford v. State of Idaho · filed 2022-08-23(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.” ... Plaintiff’s allegations fit this definition, and, to the extent he can state facts that show he can meet the elements of federal claims, and show a causal connection between the harm and each defendant, he will be permitted to pursue his related state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim related to a federal claim when both form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Foster v. Tanem · filed 2022-08-24(a)

While it is a close call, the court finds that the plaintiff’s claim that the officers violated state law by failing to contact him about his property or return it is related to the Fourth Amendment claim.

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

Ramrattan v. The State of New York · filed 2022-09-13(a)

Because plaintiff's negligence claim arises out of the same facts upon which his federal claims are based, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares a loose factual connection with federal claims arising from the same occurrence and would ordinarily be tried in one proceeding.

Castellanos v. City of Reno · filed 2022-09-19(a)

The Court therefore finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law BIS claim is appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law medical malpractice claim arising from the same facts as a federal deliberate indifference claim.

Clayborne v. Godiwalla · filed 2022-10-13(a)

Because the facts underlying the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim are the same as those underlying his deliberate indifference claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claim against the medical defendants. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that derives from the same facts as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

German v. Jeffreys · filed 2022-10-18(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) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim sufficiently related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction to share a common nucleus of operative facts.

Hatch v. Barrett · filed 2022-11-23(a)

The Court is satisfied at this time that Plaintiffs’ state law defamation claim is sufficiently related to the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, such that the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim that is part of the same case or controversy as a sufficiently pleaded federal claim.

Moreno v. Peffley · filed 2022-12-14(a)

However, because this claim is related to the due process claim discussed above and therefore part of the same case or controversy, the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this related claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but only if Mr. Moreno is able to plead sufficient facts to state a cognizable due process claim and he includes this state claim in an amended complaint.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share the same underlying facts as claims within original federal jurisdiction.

SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE V. CITY OF SEATTLE · filed 2022-12-30(a)

The district court also properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims because they “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).

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

Cosby v. Mayfield · filed 2023-01-03(a)

Because the facts related to the plaintiff’s claim of negligence are the same as those related to his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

(PC) Onley v. Davis · filed 2023-01-06(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 in a federal action when they are closely related to the federal allegations and form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Tillman v. State of California · filed 2023-01-06(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.”

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the same conduct as federal claims that pass initial review.

Perez v. Huneycutt · filed 2023-01-23(a)

The Court will also allow Plaintiff’s claims under Indiana and North Carolina law based on the same conduct to pass initial review at this early stage of the proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to federal claims that have passed initial review.

Carmona v. Union County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-01-25(a)

Federal district courts may entertain claims not otherwise within their adjudicatory authority when those claims “are so related to claims ... within [federal-court competence] that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... This claim appears to be related to the Plaintiff’s federal claims that have passed initial review, and the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it at this time.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state negligence claims related to federal claims that pass initial review.

Crump v. Carver · filed 2023-01-25(a)

The negligence claims appear to be related to the Plaintiff’s federal claims that have passed initial review, and the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them at this time.

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

Maye v. Strollo · filed 2023-02-02(a)

As discussed above, Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights will continue and, the Court finds the state law claims are so related to the constitutional claims as to “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Thus, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and allow the state law claims to proceed in federal court as well.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law derivative claims when a federal securities claim is properly part of the suit.

Grobler v. Leasure · filed 2023-02-17(a)

The complaints plausibly allege that the state law derivative claims are related to the federal securities law claim such that the Court could assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law derivative claims if the federal securities law claim is properly a part of the lawsuit.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related Florida Civil Rights Act claims alongside federal claims.

Session v. Putnam County Sheriff Department · filed 2023-02-21(a)

Defendant also maintains that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over Plaintiff’s related state law claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Fla. Stat. § 760.01 et seq. See Notice at 2-3; see also Amended Complaint, Cts. V-VI. The Court is satisfied it may properly exercise jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to hear a related state-law negligence claim when it is anchored to a federal claim.

Brink v. Parhiz · filed 2023-03-03(a)

Plaintiff may bring his state law negligence claims in federal court only if he anchors his claim to a related federal claim, such as an Eighth Amendment claim.

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

SALCEDO v. RN STAFF INC. · filed 2023-03-08(a)

Here, Ms. Salcedo's legal malpractice claim constitutes an integral part of her overall case or controversy based on her federal claims against Mr. Amatorio, allowing for a proper exercise of supplemental jurisdiction by our court.

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

Hernandez v. Thornton · filed 2023-03-13(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits a district court to 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.” ... The Court will permit Plaintiff to proceed against the two individual Defendants under a state law negligence theory on the same facts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain and decide supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when state law is settled and the parties have fully briefed the facts.

Shoemaker-Stephen v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners · filed 2003-01-06(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) of that same statute grants this Court the discretion to refuse to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental claims arising under state law, where the federal claims, over which the Court had original jurisdiction, have been dismissed. ... Be that as it may, because the law is settled in Ohio as to these two causes of action, and because the parties have had full opportunity to brief the facts, the Court shall rule with respect to these claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for summary judgment when the parties have completed discovery and briefed those claims.

Nunnery v. City of Bossier · filed 2011-09-26(c)

Given that both parties have undergone discovery and briefed the state law claims, the Court chooses to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and retain jurisdiction over Nunnery’s state claims for the purpose of ruling on these motions for summary judgment.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims closely related to federal claims when judicial economy favors resolving claims already briefed and argued.

Auscape International v. National Geographic Society · filed 2006-11-07(a)

The Court retained supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the sake of judicial economy because (1) the state law claims are intimately related to the federal claims, (2) the state law claims already had been briefed and argued, and (3) the Court and parties invested heavily in resolving them.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including where the state-law claims are fully briefed and straightforward to decide.

Tyler v. Trustees of Purdue University · filed 2011-07-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction, the Court has the discretion to dismiss the remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds the latter two grounds for an exception applicable in this case. Here, both parties have briefed Tyler’s state law claims, and this Court is intimately familiar with the details of the case. Requiring the state court to address these claims would cause a substantial duplication of effort. Additionally, the supplemental claims are straightforward and easily decided based on established state precedent. For these reasons, the Court elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tyler’s state law claims.

Section 1367 leaves the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim to the court’s discretion, and the court may defer that decision while an amended complaint could change the analysis.

Battle v. Whitehurst · filed 1993-08-26

Whether the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Ms. Battle’s state law claim against Magistrate Studds is a matter of judicial discretion which will not be addressed until any amended complaint is' filed against Magistrate Studds because the content of the amended complaint could alter any analysis of the issue. This is especially true where, as here, the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original subject matter jurisdiction with the exception of the possible claims against Magistrate Studds.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion over remaining state law claims after dismissal of the federal claim, and the court may defer addressing those claims while amendment of the federal complaint is pending.

Moore v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2007-07-18(c)(3)

Absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the state law claims can only be maintained through the district court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As explained, pending Plaintiffs filing of an Amended Complaint, I decline to address the state law claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors awaiting possible amendment of the federal claims.

Fralin v. County of Bucks · filed 2003-12-23(c)(3)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over plaintiffs PHRA claim because the only federal claim has been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, it would be more efficient for this Court to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs PHRA claim until arbitration proceedings are complete and plaintiff decides whether it is appropriate to file an amended complaint asserting claims under §§ 1983 and 1985.