28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Miguel Contreras, Jr., by and through his Medical Power of Attorney, Matthew Andrew Garces, RN, CEO, and Individually v. · filed 2025-07-11

And, as to Plaintiff’s asserted claims based on Texas law, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the court lacks diversity jurisdiction and the complaint states no federal claim.

Bonner v. Repairs of the Breach · filed 2025-07-19(a)

Because the court lacks diversity jurisdiction and the plaintiff has not stated a claim for a violation of federal law, this court has no jurisdiction to hear a state-law claim between citizens of the same state. The court will dismiss the plaintiff’s negligence claim.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when there is no cognizable federal claim.

McMillan v. NANA Corporation · filed 2025-08-18(a)

Because Plaintiff has not stated a federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised in the Complaint.

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

McMillan v. KFC · filed 2025-08-18(a)

Because Plaintiff has not stated a federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised in the Complaint.

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

(PC) Carpenter v. Matteson · filed 2025-09-03(a)

The court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under California law unless there is a basis for original jurisdiction under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Right now, there is not.

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

Wahl v. Snyder · filed 2025-09-08

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

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

Morris v. Snyder · filed 2025-09-11(a)

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

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

Palifka v. Fischer Property Group LLC · filed 2025-09-12(a)

With Plaintiff’s FTCA claim dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the Court is precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendants Fischer and Schmidt.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Miedel v. Ally Bank · filed 2025-09-29(a)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claim for lack of jurisdiction—and because it has no independent subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims—it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has no original jurisdiction over the action.

Halloum v. 60's Diner and Restaurant LLC · filed 2025-10-08(a)

However, because both Plaintiff and the named Defendants are residents of Oregon and, as discussed above, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under a federal statute, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over such state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).

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

Zahir v. Equitable Interest and Property of Naja Talibah Zahir · filed 2025-10-09(a)

Without this source of original jurisdiction established, the Court has no basis upon which to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 requires a basis of original jurisdiction for supplemental claims; without one, the state-law claims cannot continue.

Deva · filed 2025-10-16(a)

But parties seeking to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction must have “a hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang it.” Rivera v. Allstate Ins., 913 F.3d 603, 617 (7th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Because none of Mr. Deva’s federal claims survive, his state-law claims cannot continue. They are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Nunnally · filed 2025-12-12(a)

And if this court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court also cannot assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Count I, IL, and II under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law counterclaims when the original complaint establishes no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Chrysanthus · filed 2025-12-29(a)

It asserts only supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as the basis for federal jurisdiction. Because, as set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff has not established a basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court also lacks jurisdiction over Defendant’s state law counterclaims.

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

Jones · filed 2025-12-30(a)

While a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it may not do so without having original jurisdiction over a related claim. Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Palekaiko Beachboys Club, Inc. v. City · filed 2026-01-02(a)

Nor is supplemental jurisdiction available under 28 U.S.C. § 1367: given that the court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims presenting federal questions (the First Amendment and antitrust claims), it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction when the court has no claim within its original jurisdiction.

Leslie · filed 2026-01-15(a)

There is also no supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because Mr. Leslie has not stated any claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no claim is within the court’s original jurisdiction.

VEGA · filed 2026-01-26

Because she does not assert any federal claims, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

YEWAISIS · filed 2026-01-28(a)

Because the Court does not have original jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court likewise cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Chavies · filed 2026-03-03(a)

Here, because Plaintiff’s sole federal claim is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the court is precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Castellanos · filed 2026-03-23(a)

As explained by Judge Rozzoni, Section 1367 allows the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction only in cases in which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Sloan · filed 2026-03-24(a)

Without a valid federal claim, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sloan’s remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when the court has an independent basis for original jurisdiction.

Baldwin · filed 2026-03-31(a)

Here, the parties are citizens of the same state and Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims against AP&T. Therefore, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Gibson · filed 2026-04-08(a)

Because the Court determined that it lacked original jurisdiction, or federal question subject matter jurisdiction, over Plaintiffs’ claim against USPS under the FTCA, supplemental jurisdiction is inapplicable.

Section 1367 cannot support supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the sole federal claim does not establish original jurisdiction.

Czachorski · filed 2026-04-09(a)

And, given that the FDCPA claim is the sole basis for federal jurisdiction (Czachorski’s WCA claim would fall solely under this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction), (see ECF No. 1 ¶7), her request for injunctive relief on the state law claim is not a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction and deny remand.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction when the action contains no claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Maynard · filed 2026-05-15(a)

Additionally, because Maynard alleges no claim within the court’s original jurisdiction, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Cox · filed 2026-06-24(a)

Because the court lacks original jurisdiction over Ms. Cox’s claims under these federal provisions, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law malpractice claims.

Section 1367(a) requires dismissal of related state law claims when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Scarfo v. Ginsberg · filed 1999-05-14(a)

The federal courts of appeals, however, have uniformly held that once the district court determines that subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff's federal claims does not exist, courts must dismiss a plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367 cannot support jurisdiction over an additional claim when there is no civil action to which it can attach.

NE Southern Railroad v. B&M, et al. · filed 2008-09-30(c)

Insofar as the plaintiff argues that Count IV of its complaint does not fall within § 10501's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Board, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

BAUMBACH v. MILLS · filed 2019-09-30(a)

A federal court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court has original jurisdiction over a related claim.

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

Barner v. Centennial Hills Hospital · filed 2024-12-17(a)

The complaint cites 28 U.S.C. § ... 1367, which provides for supplemental jurisdiction, but supplemental jurisdiction applies for state law claims only when there is already original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

(UD) (PS) Stonegate Apartments L.P. v. Jackson · filed 2025-04-14(a)

At one point in the Notice of Removal, Defendant cites 28 U.S.C. § 1367 which provides the Court has ... supplemental jurisdiction over other claims that a related to claims for which the court has original jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 2.) As the Court does not have original jurisdiction for the reasons ... described above, this statute is inapplicable to the present action.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the only federal issue is raised as an affirmative defense rather than a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Sexson v. Servaas · filed 1994-02-10(a)

Defendants correctly assert that the Court’s characterization of its jurisdiction over the state law claims should have been something other than supplemental jurisdiction, which is provided for in the following terms: ... However, that mischar-acterization is of no ultimate consequence. The Voting Rights Act claims which ordinarily would invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court were raised here via an affirmative defense, which is an insufficient basis on which to confer federal jurisdiction.

A surviving § 1983 claim can support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under § 1367.

Carvalho v. Town of Westport · filed 2001-04-09

Because Carvalho states a claim for relief under section 1983, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a receiver’s state-law fraudulent-transfer claim when it is part of the same case or controversy as the federal enforcement action.

Klein v. Cornelius · filed 2015-05-27(a)

The UFTA claim is therefore “part of the same case or controversy” as the federal question claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and is necessary to enforce judgments in the original case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over declaratory judgment claims connected to federal RICO claims as part of the same case or controversy.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC · filed 2014-12-18(a)

Thus, the Court concludes that, at a minimum, it can at this stage of the proceedings assert supplemental jurisdiction over State Farm’s declaratory judgment claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same conduct as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Mirror Finish PDR, LLC v. Cosmetic Car Company Holdings, Inc. · filed 2020-08-07(a)

There is no doubt, and Plaintiffs have put forward no argument otherwise, that Plaintiffs’ state law claims arise from the same business arrangement and conduct underlying their RICO claim, so this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Burroughs v. Mitchell · filed 2018-09-06(a)

Because Burroughs's negligence claims arise out of the same facts upon which his federal constitutional claims are based, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as an alternative to his First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims based on the same facts as the federal claims.

Weston v. Baldwin · filed 2019-12-02(a)

Weston bases his state law claims on the facts that serve as the basis for Counts 1-3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims because they involve the same facts as the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim arising from the same case or controversy as a cognizable federal Eighth Amendment claim.

(PC) McMillan v. Delgado · filed 2020-01-16(a), (c)

Here, because the Court has determined that Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants O. Delgado, N. Romero, D. Brown, C. Riley, B. Jones, M. Negrete, and J. Dunnahoe pursuant to § 1983, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s California negligence claim, which appears to rise from the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.

Section 1367(a) requires sufficient facts to show that a proposed intervenor’s claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the original action.

Bautista REO PR Corp. v. Estate of Roberto Maldonado-Morales · filed 2020-10-14(a)

Here again, Óptima has provided too few facts to permit this court to find that its proposed interpleader action forms part of the same case or controversy that launched Bautista’s original suit. To the contrary, the event giving rise to the proposed interpleader action—the damage caused by Hurricane Maria and related insurance claims—occurred after this court entered judgment finding that defendants had breached their loan agreement.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against a party when they form part of the same constitutional case or controversy and no ground for declining jurisdiction under subsection (c) applies.

Ellis ex rel. Ingram v. Bankhead · filed 1993-08-12(a), (c)

Because both Count V and Count VI “are so related to claims in the action within [the district courts’] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution” (Section 1367(a)), and because neither of them comes within the grounds for declination of exercise of such supplemental jurisdiction specified in Section 1367(c), they must be sustained.

Section 1367(a) requires a state-law claim to share the same case or controversy with a claim within original jurisdiction before subsection (c) discretion can arise.

Pompy v. Monroe Bank and Trust · filed 2020-10-27(a)

It has no authority to do so here because the claim is a purely state-law claim between non-diverse parties, and it is not related within the meaning of section 1367(a) to a pleaded claim over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. The Court’s discretionary authority to retain or dismiss such a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) does not come into play because there is no basis to exercise authority of the breach of contract claim to begin with.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law proceedings that arise from the same operative facts as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harrison v. Jefferson Parish School Board · filed 2020-11-20(a)

As an initial matter, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Summary Proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Summary Proceedings relate to the same core issue as the federal claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction––whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights, under the U.S. Constitution, the state Constitution, or Section 17:416, by suspending Ka’Mauri.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to a legal malpractice claim against a criminal defense attorney based only on the broad factual background shared with federal civil rights claims against police for intentional misconduct.

Holloway v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2020-11-23(a)

That these claims share a broad factual background does not change the fact that these are simply two distinct cases; Plaintiff would not be expected to try a legal malpractice claim for negligent representation alongside a theory of intentional police misconduct that does not implicate the relevant attorney as a participant or co-conspirator. ... I conclude that supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) is not present.

Section 1367(a) permits pendent party jurisdiction over state law claims against a party whose federal claim was dismissed when those claims are substantially related to a federal claim against other parties.

Jones v. Village of Villa Park · filed 1992-01-24(a)

Although the only federal claim against the Village is being dismissed, jurisdiction still exists over the state law claims against the Village. A recently enacted statute permits the exercise of pendent party jurisdiction in the present type of situation in that the state law claims against the Village are substantially related to the federal claim against the officers.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same case or controversy as a properly pleaded federal claim.

Stewart v. Roe · filed 1991-11-01(a)

However, since this court has determined that Counts One, Two and Three properly state a claim under § 1983, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims which form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Clearly, Stewart’s battery claim arose from the same controversy as that pled in the § 1983 claims. Therefore, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count Six.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related third-party claims in bankruptcy adversary proceedings, subject to the court’s discretion to decline jurisdiction.

Hawkins v. Eads (In Re Eads) · filed 1991-12-31(a)

I conclude that the supplemental jurisdiction statute applies in bankruptcy adversary proceedings and, subject to the court’s discretion to decline to exercise such jurisdiction, permits defendants to assert third-party claims on theories of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction, which are components of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy when federal claims remain viable.

Slavin v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. · filed 1992-05-11(a)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the state law claims which comprise the same case or controversy will not be dismissed because the federal claims remain viable.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claims remain in the case.

Walsh v. Chittenden Corp. · filed 1992-06-25

Defendants have also moved to dismiss the pendent state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. In light of the court’s refusal to dismiss the federal claims, pendent jurisdiction is properly asserted over the related state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims only when another claim provides a proper basis for federal jurisdiction.

Cushing v. Moore · filed 1992-07-27(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction could be exercised only if some other, related claim provides a proper basis for federal jurisdiction.

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

Sliwa v. Hunt · filed 1992-11-02(a)

And because all of the remaining counts “are so related to claims in [Count I] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution” (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)), the concept of supplemental jurisdiction permits their retention here if they survive dismissal.

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

Wallace v. City of Chicago · filed 1992-11-10(a)

If Count III were to survive in this District Court, Counts I and II would remain here under the supplemental jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)... (for certainly they “are so related to [Count III] that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution”).

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

Roper v. County of Chesterfield, Va. · filed 1992-12-02(a)

But since the Court retains at least a portion of Count I, it will assert jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim because Counts I and V are sufficiently related that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving separate shipments when they form part of the same case or controversy as a shipment that satisfies the federal jurisdictional amount.

Dress Barn, Inc. v. LTA Group, Inc. · filed 1993-05-17(a)

Moreover, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving other shipments because each carton shipped pursuant to the agreement “forms part of the same case or controversy” as the shipment(s) which contained at least $10,000 in goods.

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

City of Toledo v. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc. · filed 1993-05-25(a)

Because the City’s section 3734.101 claim is so related to its federal claims that they form part of the same case and controversy, this Court accepts supplemental jurisdiction over the City’s state law claims in Count Four.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over an additional claim only when it is sufficiently related to the claims remaining for decision.

Skydiving Center of Greater Washington, D.C., Inc. v. St. Mary's County Airport Commission · filed 1993-04-16(a)

To the extent that he is alleged to have engaged in other conduct that might give rise to a cause of action, his acts are not, in light of the rulings that I have made in the Skydiving Center’s favor on the summary judgment motions, sufficiently related to the facts that remain to be decided to warrant the exercise of this court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

Section 1367 requires an underlying claim within federal jurisdiction before supplemental jurisdiction can support related state-law claims.

Swartz v. Schaub · filed 1993-07-12

Supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 is not enough, for by its very nature it must be supplemental to some claim over which jurisdiction exists (and for that reason the Count VI breach of contract claim, which clearly involves less than $50,000, may be ignored).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a matter sufficiently closely related to a primary case while that case remains before the court.

Gray v. Cleaning Systems and Suppliers, Inc. · filed 1993-10-25

So long as the primary case is still before me, I have ancillary or supplemental jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and related case law; I also have authority over matters sufficiently closely related to the litigation.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim sharing a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Vigo County Republican Central Committee v. Vigo County Commissioners · filed 1993-10-15(a)

This court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The Plaintiffs’ federal and state claims involve a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against a party lacking an independent basis for federal jurisdiction when the claims form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Yattoni v. Oakbrook Terrace, a Municipal Corporation Detective Michael Delaurentis · filed 1993-12-28(a)

Here the record makes it clear that the Waukegan and Oakbrook Terrace police departments shared information and, to a certain extent, acted in concert with one another. Their actions can fairly be said to form part of the same Article III case or controversy, entitling this Court to retain jurisdiction over the Oakbrook Defendants as to the state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction, even when the claims differ in nature.

Brandi v. Belger Cartage Service, Inc. · filed 1994-01-13(a)

Plaintiffs’ claims against Professional for failure to procure insurance for the freight may be of a different nature than plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants for direct damage to the freight, but the court finds them sufficiently interrelated to warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. The claims arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact” and are such that a plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.”

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to a claim within its original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission · filed 1994-01-31(a)

The court finds that the state law claims against defendants Danny Belyeu Chevrolet, Inc., Danny Belyeu, individually, and Scott Evans are so related to the § 1983 action over which the court has original jurisdiction that they are part of the same case or controversy. As a result, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over those state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims based on the same alleged conduct as federal claims because they arise from the same case or controversy.

Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co. · filed 1994-02-03(a)

There is no doubt that the Title VII and the HRL claims arise from the “same case or controversy” since the state claims are based on the same allegations of discriminatory conduct as the federal claims. Thus, the court clearly has the power to entertain plaintiffs’ state HRL claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case as a claim within the court’s original federal-question jurisdiction.

LABORERS COMBINED FUNDS v. Ruscitto · filed 1994-02-07(a)

Because the Court has original jurisdiction based upon a federal question and because the plaintiffs’ WPCL claims form a part of the same case, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Wellington v. District of Columbia · filed 1994-03-31(a)

The Court disagrees with defendants that no common nucleus of operative fact exists with the federal claims that supports supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over plaintiffs’ District of Columbia law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a remaining federal claim because they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Reynolds v. Hale · filed 1994-06-16(a)

Because state claims form part of the same case or controversy as the excessive force federal claim, and each allegation is derived from “a common nucleus of operative fact,” the Court concludes it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a shareholder derivative claim arising from the same controversy as claims supported by diversity jurisdiction, even if the derivative claim lacks independent diversity.

First National Bancshares of Beloit, Inc. v. Geisel · filed 1994-05-20(a)

All of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in this action are unquestionably interrelated and arise out of the same controversy related to the enforceability of the option agreement in question. The shareholder derivative claim is therefore appropriate for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, even if complete diversity, and hence subject matter jurisdiction, were otherwise lacking for that particular claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that arises from a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Smithgall v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania · filed 1994-05-26(a)

In this case, of course, this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Hence, inasmuch as the plaintiffs federal claims and state law breach of contract claim arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is, at first blush, proper.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the district court's original jurisdiction.

Carpenters Health And Welfare Trust Fund For California v. Tri Capital Corp. · filed 1994-06-03(a)

Therefore, the district court at a minimum could have asserted jurisdiction over the stop notice cause of action as a pendent state claim, because the two claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a) (Supp. IV 1991) (supplemental jurisdiction).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same operative facts as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

State of Cal. on Behalf of California Dept. of Health Services v. B & R Davis Fertilizers, Inc. · filed 1994-07-19(a)

Because the state claims arise out of the same set of operative facts as the CERCLA claim and involve the same contaminated property, the court also had the power to hear the state claims.

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

Murray v. Bath Iron Works Corp. · filed 1994-08-17(a)

Given that the bulk of the plaintiffs’ four federal claims have survived summary judgment, and that the state law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at this point is wholly appropriate.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims so related to a claim within original jurisdiction that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Schulze v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc. · filed 1994-09-14(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ two other state-law claims because they are “so related” to the conversion claim that they “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against an individual defendant that arise from the same facts and form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Richard Baker, Cross-Appellee v. Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc. And Lawson White · filed 1994-09-23(a)

Baker’s claims against White are essentially identical to his claim against Farmers and form part of the same case or controversy. The district court properly exercised its pendent jurisdiction in removing the claims against White.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that shares substantial factual issues with a claim already before the district court.

Cohen v. Reed · filed 1994-11-18(a)

Because the proposed sale of SCREAM’s principal assets involves many of the same factual intricacies that are before this Court in the 90-CV-2795 action, the Court may properly assert supplemental jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment complaint.

Section 1367(a) reaches a state-law claim arising from the same operative facts as a federal claim because the claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Milwaukee Professional Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 215 v. City of Milwaukee · filed 1994-12-01(a)

The Court concludes that the collective bargaining issue under state law is so closely related to the validity of the new scheme under ADEA that it forms a part of the same case or controversy under Article III. The claims, though arising under completely different laws, arise out of common operative facts; both the ADEA claim and the MERA claim arise directly out of the City’s adoption and implementation of the optional benefit plan.

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

Hammond v. Kunard · filed 1994-12-22(a)

The Court finds that the Claytons’ foreclosure action is not a part of the same ease or controversy as Mr. Hammond’s Bivens action. Therefore, according to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court has no power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Claytons’ state foreclosure action.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims and form part of the same case or controversy.

Innovative Networks, Inc. v. Satellite Airlines Ticketing Centers, Inc. · filed 1995-01-04(a)

In the present case, the Court finds that INI’s state claims derive from the same nucleus of operative fact as its federal claims and that both the federal and state claims are part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against an individual whose conduct also gave rise to a federal claim against his employer, even when no federal claim remains against the individual.

Quillen v. American Tobacco Co. · filed 1995-01-25(a)

Although Knight’s alleged conduct did not give the plaintiff a federal claim against him individually, it is part of the activity that gave rise to a federal claim against his employer. The state law claim against Knight is a part of the same ease or controversy as the plaintiffs Title VII claim against American Tobacco. The court will therefore exercise its discretion and will hear those claims.

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

Acme Markets, Inc. v. Wharton Hardware & Supply Corp. · filed 1995-03-28(a)

However, we may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case because we have original jurisdiction over Giant's antitrust claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and Wharton's claims are so related to Giant's claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 requires a state claim to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction.

Benyi v. Broome County, NY · filed 1995-03-09(a)

I find that these claims do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact and are not part of the same case or controversy. The Constitutional right to personal safety and a request for documents are distinct factually and legal. Therefore, this Court cannot exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Benyi’s FOIL claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Harris v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 1995-04-03(a)

Consequently, this Court concludes there is “a common nucleus of operative facts” shared by the federal and state claims sufficient to permit supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) covers a state law claim that shares a nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

Fitzgerald v. Alleghany Corp. · filed 1995-05-02(a)

The State law claim could have been asserted in the sense that the nucleus of operative fact it shared with the federal claim brought it within the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 1367(a) authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a federal claim because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Whaley v. Sony Magnetic Products, Inc. of America · filed 1995-06-23(a)

In the event that the parties are not diverse, the court finds that § 1367 authorizes it to hear the plaintiff's state law claims, as these causes of action arise out of the same facts as the federal age discrimination claim and, thus, "form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same Article III case or controversy as a surviving federal claim.

Angara v. City of Chicago · filed 1995-07-20(a)

However, since the court has not dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, namely plaintiffs § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim, and because the claim in Count III forms part of the same case or controversy under Article III, the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.

Section 1367(a) requires a state law claim to be part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Vick v. Foote, Inc. · filed 1995-08-01(a)

Additionally, the court finds Vick’s state law claims, although perhaps closely related to the Title VII claims, are not part of the same “case or controversy” as that described by the Equal Pay Act claim, the only remaining claim over which this court has original jurisdiction, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the exercise of federal supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits district courts to hear state claims that arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with a substantial federal claim.

Hoeck v. City of Portland, a Municipal Corporation · filed 1995-07-10(a)

District courts have discretion to hear pendent state claims where there is a substantial federal claim arising out of a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Noel v. Town of Plymouth, Mass. · filed 1995-07-14(a)

Because the claim pending against Madsen for intentional infliction of emotional distress arises out of the common nucleus of operative facts involving the challenged arrest, the court has determined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 requires state claims to form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims and gives the court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Wenner v. CG Bretting Mfg. Co., Inc. · filed 1995-09-06

When a court considers whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims such as plaintiffs breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, it determines whether the claims form part of the same case or controversy as the federal law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and “weights] the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity-” Wright v. Associated Insurance Companies Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir.1994). ... When federal claims are dismissed before trial, as is the case here, the decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is a matter of discretion. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case and I will dismiss plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same operative facts as federal claims, even if the state claims require more proof.

Sigmon v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl · filed 1995-10-06(a)

Because the operative facts underlying plaintiffs Title VII claims are identical to those underlying plaintiffs state law claims, the federal and state claims are part of the same case or controversy. The fact that the state law claims may require more proof than the federal claims is an insufficient reason for the Court to find that it lacks jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent common law claim if a federal claim is reinstated.

Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton, and the District of Columbia · filed 1995-11-28

If that claim is ultimately reinstated, the District Court would be able to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the conversion claim under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367 (Supp. V 1993).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a defendant when they arise from the same case or controversy as federal claims against other defendants.

City of New Orleans v. Kernan · filed 1996-02-02(a)

These state law claims arise out of the same case or controversy as the CERCLA claim brought against Boh Brothers and all the other defendants. Supplemental jurisdiction (§ 1367) is applicable. This Court can and should retain jurisdiction over these state law claims against National Union in order to effect an orderly resolution to this litigation.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against individual defendants when those claims form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s jurisdiction.

Miller v. Brungardt · filed 1996-02-09(a)

The state law claims against Brungardt and Flores are so related to those asserted against USD 469, ... over which there is no question of the court’s jurisdiction, that they form part of the same case or controversy. The court, in its discretion, will allow Miller to proceed against Brungardt and Flores under the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine with the exception of the KAAD claims.

Section 1367 allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when a federal claim survives.

Johnson County Airport Commission v. Parsonitt Co. · filed 1996-02-05(c)(3)

By ruling that plaintiff has a CERCLA § 113(f) claim against defendant, this court has removed the premise of defendant’s first argument. Additionally, plaintiffs breach of contract claims under Counts III and IV are related to the alleged hazardous releases that gave rise to the section 113 claim. There is ample justification for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III and IV.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims sufficiently related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. · filed 1996-04-10(a)

However, the calls that were the subject of AT & T’s charges to Production were apparently part of the process by which the unidentified third parties were able to place calls to the Dominican Republic, and are thus sufficiently related to MCI’s claims to warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that arises from a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Headwear v. Stange · filed 1996-03-22(a)

The state law claim for recovery on an account stated is subject to the court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because it arises from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within their original jurisdiction.

Southern Council of Industrial Workers v. Ford · filed 1996-05-14(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction exists over state-law claims where, as here, "the federal-law claims and state-law claims in the case `derive from a common nucleus of operative fact' and are `such that [Southern Council] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.'" Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys. v. Reimer & Koger, Assocs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1063, 1067 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoted case omitted).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims only when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Clark v. B.H. Holland Co., Inc. · filed 1996-05-14(a)

Because we discern no common nucleus of operative fact between the state claims and the inventorship claim, we reluctantly conclude that the district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 to decide the state claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim only if it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

Thomas v. St. Louis Bd. of Educ. · filed 1996-06-10(a)

According to Gibbs, a federal court has pendent jurisdiction if the state and federal claims derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact" and if the plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding." 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138. The Court finds that Plaintiff's defamation claim, which accrued over one year after Plaintiff's Title VII claim, and which does not appear to have any connection to her Title VII claim, does not derive from the same nucleus of operative fact as her Title VII claim. Therefore the Court will dismiss Count III for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims only when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.

Slaby v. Berkshire · filed 1996-06-17(a)

Federal courts have jurisdiction over state claims between non-diverse parties when they are part of the same “ease or controversy” as a federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Such supplemental jurisdiction has been interpreted to incorporate preexisting caselaw on pendant and ancillary jurisdiction, which required that the claims stem from “a common nucleus of operative fact.” ... Because the counterclaims do not arise from facts that are implicated by the ADA claim, the Court is without jurisdiction and the counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) requires a supplemental claim to form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Glinka v. Abraham and Rose Company Ltd. · filed 1996-07-24(a)

Plaintiffs have not shown that Count IX is so related to the claims involving Housecraft property and contractual rights that they form part of the same case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim below the diversity amount when it shares enough factual questions with a related claim to form part of the same case or controversy.

Clarke v. Whitney · filed 1996-07-25(a)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 if the two claims are part of the “same case or controversy.” ... Although the legal issues are different, it seems that many fact questions are shared between the two claims. Based on that, we find that Plaintiffs PWPCL claim is so related to his disability claim that it forms part of the same action or controversy.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Soth v. Baltimore Sun Co. · filed 1996-07-18(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they stem from “a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same set of operative facts as claims within federal jurisdiction.

Marcus v. AT & T CORP. · filed 1996-08-21(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction exists for any claims that do not arise under federal law because all claims asserted arise from the same set of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan · filed 1996-09-20(a)

Here, the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, negligent entrustment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and loss of services all involve the same nucleus of operative facts as the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an additional party’s state-law claim arising from the same acts as a federal claim and involving substantially the same questions and evidence.

Brewer v. Petroleum Suppliers, Inc. · filed 1996-11-13(a)

This supplemental jurisdiction includes state law claims by parties that stem from the same transaction or occurrence on which the federal claim is based. ... Mr. Brewer’s loss of consortium claim arises out of the same alleged acts of the defendants, and will involve substantially the same underlying questions and evidence. Therefore, Mr. Brewer’s claims for loss of consortium will not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as claims within federal jurisdiction.

In Re Comcast Cellular Telecommunications Litigation · filed 1996-12-06(a)

To the extent that Counts I and II raise state claims which are not preempted by federal law, supplemental jurisdiction exists because all claims asserted arise from the same nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that is part of the same case or controversy as a claim within original jurisdiction when no ground warrants declining it.

Samuelson v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co., Inc. · filed 1996-11-27

Section 1367 of the Judicial Improvements Act states the federal courts “shall have supplemental jurisdiction” over claims which are “part of the same case or controversy” as a claim over which the court exercises original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Both parties have agreed in their briefs that Samuelson’s state law claim is part of the same case or controversy as his FHAA claim. Neither party has asserted this case presents a novel issue of state law and the Court sees no exceptional or compelling reason to decline jurisdiction over Samuelson’s claim. Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Samuelson’s state law claim alleging a violation of the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code.

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

ABF Capital Management v. Askin Capital Management, L.P. · filed 1997-01-24(a)

Moreover, even if this Court does not have original jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), section 1367 grants a federal court supplemental jurisdiction “over all other 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, which arise out of the same operative facts as their federal RICO claim, fall within this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same operative facts as federal jurisdictional issues, regardless of how those issues are resolved.

Westphal v. Catch Ball Products Corp. · filed 1997-02-18(a)

As both the jurisdictional issues and the state law claims arose from a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court had supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims irrespective of the outcome of the federal jurisdictional issue.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim sharing operative facts with federal claims and allows a court to decline it under subsection (c)(4) when exceptional circumstances present compelling reasons.

Murphy v. Village of Hoffman Estates · filed 1997-03-27

The claim contained in Count XVII is therefore part of the same case or controversy as the ADEA and ADA retaliation claims already before the Court and is within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court finds exercise of supplemental jurisdiction appropriate in this case. The reasons advanced by Defendant are not “compelling,” nor are the circumstances surrounding this motion “exceptional.”

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

Green v. Nevers · filed 1997-04-29(a)

The district court also properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims arose from the same occurrence that formed the basis of the federal claims.

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

Green v. Nevers · filed 1997-06-06(a)

The district court also properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims arose from the same occurrence that formed the basis of the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Franzon v. Massena Memorial Hospital · filed 1997-08-08(a)

Having found federal jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendant state law claims. Plaintiffs’ supplemental state claims arise from the same ease and controversy over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so factually intertwined with federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Mason v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company Dba U.S. West Communications, Inc. · filed 1997-08-13(a)

The district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Montana state law claims which were so factually intertwined with the federal claims that they formed part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as federal claims, including claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed.

Congregacion de la Mision Provincia de Venezuela v. Curi · filed 1997-09-05(a)

Because it appears that these claims are part of the same “case or controversy” as the federal claims, the court retains supplemental jurisdiction over them, even those involving defendants against whom the RICO claims will be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal claims related to federal claims and their defenses as part of the same case or controversy.

Young v. 1st American Financial Services · filed 1997-09-08(a)

It is not necessary to reach the question of the sufficiency of plaintiffs' allegations of diversity jurisdiction with respect to defendant Option One, because plaintiffs’ non-federal claims are so related to claims in the TILA action (and to the defenses raised to the TILA action) that they form part of the same case or controversy, and this Court accordingly has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that arise from the same case or controversy as federal claims.

Doe Ex Rel. Hickey v. Jefferson County · filed 1997-09-20(a)

Because plaintiffs state claims arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claims, the Court finds it proper to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this ease.

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

Gossmeyer v. McDonald · filed 1997-10-07(a)

It follows that Goss.meyer’s defamation claim against Dilworth clearly forms part of the same, case or controversy. The claim therefore fell under the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction and was properly removed along with the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) requires overlap between the operative facts of federal and state claims; common actors alone do not establish a common nucleus of operative fact.

Hunt v. Up North Plastics, Inc. · filed 1997-10-17(a)

The only common fact between the claims is the alleged involvement of principals and agents of Up North and Poly America in both schemes. That the claims involve one or more common actors is, however, insufficient, without more, to create a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it and a federal claim derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

J.B. v. Killingly Board of Education · filed 1997-12-19(a)

Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (1993), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over J.B.’s state law claim because the promissory estoppel cause of action and the federal claim that DMH violated the IDEA derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Biw Deceived v. Local S6, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Iamaw District Lodge 4 · filed 1997-12-30(a)

A federal court that exercises federal question jurisdiction over a single claim may also assert supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts.

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

Thomas v. Saint Francis Hospital & Medical Center · filed 1998-01-12(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims and the Title VII claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a substantial federal claim.

DeLeon v. Beneficial Construction Co. · filed 1998-01-16(a)

Pursuant to this jurisdiction, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over all claims sufficiently related to the claim on which its original jurisdiction is based. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). State claims will be deemed “sufficiently related” to the core claim if they are part of the same “case or controversy,” or if they arise from a “common nucleus of operative facts” and the federal claim is sufficiently substantial to confer subject matter jurisdiction in the court. ... In this case, all of plaintiffs’ surviving claims clearly arise from the same factual circumstances. ... In total, these federal claims are more than substantial enough to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this court and, consequently, supplemental jurisdiction over all of the related claims.

Section 1367(a) requires a state claim and a claim within original jurisdiction to share a common nucleus of operative fact; claims involving substantially different factual findings do not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction.

Classic Communications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · filed 1998-01-22(a)

In this case, the court finds that the state antitrust claim is not sufficiently related to the Lanham Act claim over which the court has original jurisdiction to form part of the same case or controversy as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ argument that the claims both relate to plaintiffs’ frustrated efforts to expand into western Kansas, the factual findings required under the respective state and federal laws are too divergent to properly allow the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a dispute arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as a claim within the district court’s jurisdiction.

United States v. Washington · filed 1998-01-28(a)

Moreover, the dispute would arise from the same “nucleus of operative facts,” affording the court supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims closely intertwined with claims that remain within its original jurisdiction.

Campanella v. Commerce Exchange Bank · filed 1998-02-25(a)

While the district court was free to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those latter claims, it is nonetheless clear that such supplemental jurisdiction did exist, as the claims were closely intertwined with the non-contract claims that continued to remain after the dismissal.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with claims removed to federal court.

Davis v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. · filed 1998-02-26(a)

Even were I to have before me one representative who was an ERISA beneficiary and a number who were not, if some of the claims in this case are completely preempted, they may be removed to federal court, and the state law claims will be removed pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, given that all the claims are alleged to derive from a common nucleus of operative fact-alleged over-billing activity by SBCL.

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

Vamper v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 1998-03-24(a)

Because Plaintiffs state and federal claims form part of the same ease or controversy, the Court has the power to assert supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims that stem from a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Dearing v. Sigma Chemical Co. · filed 1998-04-06(a)

All Plaintiffs remaining claims, which stem from a common nucleus of operative fact, are also within the subject-matter jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over claims so related to claims within its original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc. · filed 1998-04-22(a)

The Court has original jurisdiction over the Title VII claims, and because the remaining claims clearly are “so related” to the Title VII causes of action that they form part of the same case or controversy, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over claims so related to claims within its original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Harrison v. Indosuez · filed 1998-05-20(a)

The Court has original jurisdiction over the Title YII and ADA claims, and because the remaining claims clearly are “so related” to the these causes of action that they form part of the same ease or controversy, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within original jurisdiction.

Manela v. Garantia Banking Ltd. · filed 1998-05-07(a)

None arising out of the sale of Manela’s bonds in March or on January 11 shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the surviving Rule 10b-5 claim and thus they do not form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) requires the supplemental claim to share operative facts with the claim within original jurisdiction; a causal connection through settlement negotiations alone is insufficient.

Trilithic, Inc. v. Wavetek U.S. Inc. · filed 1998-06-03(a)

The mere fact that the parties entered the Non-Disclosure Agreement as a precursor to a possible merger related to settling the patent case does not provide a sufficient connection to the patent infringement claims so as to form part of' the same case or controversy.

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

Williams v. Ragnone · filed 1998-06-12(a)

The district court has supplemental jurisdiction over Williams's state law claims because they form part of the same case or controversy as his section 1983 claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims.

Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst · filed 1998-06-22(a)

With respect to plaintiffs’ fraud, contract, fiduciary, and conversion claims, the Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a). The laws implicated are not so complex as to justify the Court’s declining to exercise jurisdiction over these claims, which derive from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as plaintiffs’ federal claims.

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

Cintron v. Scorpio Recycling, Inc. · filed 1998-08-12(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides this Court with jurisdiction over “claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiffs allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, improperly encaptioned “STOCKHOLDERS DERIVATIVE ACTION,” bear absolutely no relation to Plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims — “they do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367 requires reinstatement of state law claims intertwined with a cognizable federal claim so that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Wilson v. Lawrence Cty, MO · filed 1998-08-17(a)

Because Wilson's federal claim is cognizable, the district court had no discretion to dismiss his state law claims, as they are so intertwined with his section 1983 claim that they form part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 extends supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims so intertwined with a cognizable federal claim that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Wilson v. Lawrence County · filed 1998-08-17(a)

Because Wilson's federal claim is cognizable, the district court had no discretion to dismiss his state law claims, as they are so intertwined with his section 1983 claim that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within original federal jurisdiction, but not over tangentially related claims.

In Re: Prudential Insur. · filed 1998-07-23(a)

Of course, S 1367 does not permit courts to take jurisdiction over tangentially related claims. The issue is whether there is a "common nucleus of operative fact" and whether the claims are part of the "same case or controversy under Article III."

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact for supplemental jurisdiction.

Naftchi v. New York University · filed 1998-07-29(a)

The factual predicates of these claims simply do not overlap in any significant manner with Dr. Naftchi’s retaliation claim, and for this reason, these claims are dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact as federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ponticelli v. Zurich American Insurance Group · filed 1998-09-03(a)

Pontieelli’s state law discrimination claims against the individual defendants is based on the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as her federal claims against Zurich, and thus this Court has power to hear the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that arises from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim.

GTE New Media Services, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp. · filed 1998-09-28(a)

Moreover, because the plaintiffs unfair competition claim involves acts that directly relate to the defendants’ alleged conspiracy, in violation of the federal antitrust laws, and arise from the same “common nucleus of operative facts,” it is in the interest of judicial economy to adjudicate all such related claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

CICCorp., Inc. v. Aimtech Corp. · filed 1998-09-08(a)

State and federal claims thus form part of the same case or controversy, and trigger supplemental jurisdiction, when they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over damages claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as a federal treaty-rights dispute.

United States v. Washington · filed 1998-09-25

Moreover, the dispute would arise from the same “nucleus of operative facts,” affording the ... court supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims.

Barricks v. Minyard Food Stores · filed 1999-02-01(a)

Contrary to Barricks’s protestations, the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over her state law tort claims because Barricks’s claims all rose from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim under the court’s original jurisdiction.

Hewett v. Inland Hospital · filed 1999-02-03(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because they and the EMTALA claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law claims to form part of the same Article III case or controversy as the remaining federal claims for supplemental jurisdiction to exist.

Mandavilli v. Maldonado · filed 1999-02-22(a)

The Court does not believe the Puerto Rico Law claims for tort liability “form part of the same case of controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution” as the remaining federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims and arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Surprise v. GTE Service Corp. · filed 1999-03-17(a)

Therefore, exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims is appropriate since they form part of the same case or controversy and arise from the common nucleus of operative fact as the ADEA claims, namely the circumstances of Plaintiffs’ employment or non-employment by Defendant.

Section 1367(a) gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same case or controversy as a claim within their original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Provident Bank · filed 1999-03-18(a)

Because the other claims asserted in the 1995 action arise out of the same case or controversy and therefore fall within our supplemental jurisdiction, removal of the entire case was proper.