28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(a) requires a supplemental claim to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Adams v. Clinton · filed 1999-03-24(a)

To the contrary, there are no factual issues common to both challenges. Hence, the attack on the budget rider would not satisfy the statutory requirement for supplemental jurisdiction, which incorporated the test ... for pendent jurisdiction set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs.

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

Draus v. Town of Houlton · filed 1999-04-02(a)

It is abundantly clear here that both the state and federal suits arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts; that is, the enactment of the Houlton exotic dancing ordinance and the revocation of Draus’s nude activity permit. Both actions allege that the town officials attempted to rain Draus’s business and deprive him of his livelihood. Thus, Draus could have invoked the supplemental jurisdiction of the federal court over his state law claims.

Section 1367 supplies supplemental jurisdiction when claims in a related action arise from the litigation and settlement of a federal case and form part of the same case or controversy.

Somerset Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kimball · filed 1999-05-19(a)

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1367 and 1441(a), because this case is “so related to the claims” in Somerset v. Kimball “that they form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact as federal claims.

Bravin v. Center · filed 1999-04-14(a)

Plaintiffs’ state and city discrimination claims against Mt. Sinai are based on the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as their federal claims, and thus this Court has power to hear the pendent law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same alleged course of conduct as a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Bussie v. Allmerica Financial Corp. · filed 1999-05-19(a)

With federal question jurisdiction established, this Court is also entitled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the balance of the Complaint because plaintiffs’ TILA claim and various state law claims ... arise, from the same alleged “plan, scheme and common course of conduct” during the Class Period.

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

Hoops v. Elk Run Coal Company, Inc. · filed 1999-07-27(a)

Given its present ruling, however, and the fact that Plaintiffs’ remaining claims "are so related to [the § 510 claim] ... that they form part of the same case or controversy....” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against another party when that claim and one within original federal jurisdiction form part of the same case or controversy.

Levitt v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 1999-10-08(a)

In this case, Eden’s competing claim to the statue is so related to Levitt’s claim against the government that it forms part of the same case or controversy. The government cannot return the statue to Levitt without rejecting Eden’s claim of ownership and vice versa. In consequence, the Court holds that there is supplemental jurisdiction over Levitt’s claim against Eden.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims against attorneys who represented the plaintiff in state litigation when those claims are not part of the same case or controversy as the plaintiff’s retaliation and termination claims.

Singh v. Reed · filed 2009-08-19(a)

The district court properly dismissed the action against defendants Joel and Jeremy Golden for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Singh’s claims against these defendants, who represented Singh in the state court litigation, do not form “part of the same case or controversy” as the retaliation and termination claims, and Singh has alleged no other basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims involving the same facts as a federal question.

Uland v. City of Winsted · filed 2008-08-04(a)

And where state law claims involve the same facts as a federal question, the state claims are within supplemental jurisdiction of the court. ... His state law claims accordingly fall under the supplemental jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related nonfederal claim against the same defendant in a suit based on a federal claim.

Salton, Inc. v. Philips Domestic Appliances · filed 2005-01-12(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction of the federal district court (28 U.S.C. § 1367) can then be invoked to bring Philips's nonfederal claim against Salton into the suit.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against additional parties when those claims share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within its original jurisdiction.

Pacer Global Logistics, Inc. v. National Passenger RR Corp. · filed 2003-07-10(a)

In the present case, Pacer’s Car-mack Amendment claims against Amtrak and BNSF and its negligence claims against BNSF and Jimco derive from a common nucleus of operative facts. All four claims allege liability for the damage to cargo caused by the derailing and/or attempted rerailing of Amtrak’s rail car. Thus, pursuant to § 1367(a), I have supplemental jurisdiction over Pacer’s state law claims, including its claim against Jim-co.

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

Chandamuri v. Georgetown University · filed 2003-07-22(a)

The plaintiffs Federal Civil Rights claim under Title VI and his D.C. statutory claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” namely, the circumstances surrounding the plagiarism incident. Therefore, this Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the D.C. claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bonnie Cicio, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Carmine Cicio v. John Does 1-8, Vytra Healthcare, and · filed 2003-03-12(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court has "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" once original jurisdiction is established. ... All Ms. Cicio's claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact," Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, to wit, the denial by Dr. Spears of authorization for a double stem cell transplant. ... Subject matter jurisdiction thus exists over Ms. Cicio's malpractice claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), irrespective of whether, standing alone, they are removable.

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

Jin v. Ministry of State Security · filed 2003-03-24(a)

Because the defamation claim and the federal claims are related to the point that the plaintiffs “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding,” the court concludes that the claims do derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, even if the federal claims ultimately lack merit.

MyKids Toy Manufacturing Co. v. Walkes · filed 2003-02-27(a)

The district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). These state law claims and MyKids Toy’s federal trademark claims center on “a common nucleus of operative fact.” Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1991). “The ultimate lack of merit of the federal claim does not mean that [supplemental] jurisdiction cannot attach.” Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.1995).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim.

Allen v. U.S. Bancorp · filed 2003-01-22(a)

The federal and state claims arise out a common nucleus of operative facts. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) requires federal and state claims to form part of the same Article III case or controversy for supplemental jurisdiction to attach.

Reynolds, et al. v. CFX Mortgage, et · filed 2000-01-26(a)

The federal and state claims must “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a defendant who is not named in the federal claims when those claims arise from the same facts and form part of the same case or controversy.

Rose v. Mony Life Insurance · filed 2000-02-01(a)

Finally, contrary to Scott’s assertion, this • court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against him because they clearly arise out of the same set of facts and form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim and form part of the same case or controversy.

Gill v. Three Dimension Systems, Inc. · filed 2000-02-28(a)

Plaintiffs state claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts and are so related to plaintiffs federal claim that they form part of the same case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same case or controversy as a claim within original jurisdiction, even if the supplemental claim requires additional proof.

Milan Express, Inc. v. Averitt Express, Inc. · filed 2000-04-07(a)

We find no merit in Averitt's contention that Milan's excess damages claim does not arise out of the same case or controversy as their bond claim. Although it is true that Milan was required to prove more (e.g., that Averitt acted in bad faith) in order to prevail on the excess damages claim than it did in order to prevail on the bond claim, both claims clearly arise from the same set of facts.

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

Blakely v. First Federal Savings Bank & Trust · filed 2000-03-09(a)

The claims share a "common nucleus of operative fact” as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact as a substantial federal claim, even when the supplemental claim requires additional proof.

Express v. Averitt Express · filed 2000-04-07(a)

Although it is true that Milan was required to prove more (e.g., that Averitt acted in bad faith) in order to prevail on the excess damages claim than it did in order to prevail on the bond claim, both claims clearly arise from the same set of facts. This is sufficient to bring the excess damages claim under the purview of Section 1367 because the excess damages claim “arise[s] out of a common nucleus of operative fact with a substantial federal claim.” Lucero v. Trosch, 121 F.3d 591, 597 (11th Cir. 1997).

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

Rotter v. Leahy · filed 2000-04-21(a)

Each of these counts arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as counts (III) and (V) in the Complaint. ... Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction exists over these claims, and the motion to dismiss is denied.

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

Kalo v. Moen Inc. · filed 2000-04-28(a)

Counts One and Two are “so related” to the federal cause of action that this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims at this time.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim and raises no novel or complex issue of state law.

Ocean View Capital, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. of America · filed 2000-05-09(a), (c)(1)

The Rhode Island claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim and does not appear to raise a novel or complex issue of state law. This makes it appropriate for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Lyndonville Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier · filed 2000-05-03(a)

Because the state and federal claims share no common nucleus of operative fact, the district court lacked pendent jurisdiction to hear the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims.

Jocks v. Tavernier · filed 2000-05-17(a)

It is within the Court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Ackoff-Ortega v. Windswept Pacific Entertainment Co. · filed 2000-06-05(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction is proper in this case because plaintiffs’ state law claims form part of the same case or controversy as plaintiffs’ federal claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction, including in a removed case.

Jamal v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance · filed 2000-05-30(a)

Hence, as jurisdiction over Jamal’s flood insurance claims is exclusively federal and his claims under the homeowners’ insurance policy arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as his claims under the flood insurance policy, it is logical to try these claims together.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to hear state-law claims lacking an independent federal jurisdictional basis when they form part of the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

In Re Lutheran Brotherhood Variable Insurance Products Co. Sales Practices Litigation · filed 2000-07-11(a)

This Court is authorized to hear claims based solely on state law when those claims are “so related to claim in the action [over which the court enjoys] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... On balance, the factors involved in this case persuades the Court to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and keep jurisdiction over both the federal and state claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bodner v. Paribas · filed 2000-08-31(a)

It is patently obvious that both conditions, as well as considerations of judicial economy, favor the assertion of supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same or related facts as federal claims when the complaint alleges the necessary jurisdictional facts.

Russoli v. Salisbury Township · filed 2000-10-20(a)

Because each state law claim arises from the same or related facts as a federal law claim, the complaint sufficiently alleges the necessary jurisdictional facts. Therefore Defendants will not be prejudiced by our exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, and we will exercise it.

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

Stipelcovich v. Directv, Inc. · filed 2001-01-09(a)

The state law-based claims presented by the Plaintiff in this case must be determined by construction of the federal copyright laws and are therefore integral to the action. On that basis, this Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that involve the same controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Staley v. United States · filed 2001-02-06(a)

The remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief involve the same controversy as this federal claim. As a result, this Court properly asserts supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Farey-Jones v. Buckingham · filed 2001-03-04(a)

The state law claims clearly arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts. As such, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the interests of judicial economy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against other defendants when those claims share a common factual predicate with claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Pryzbowski v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2001-03-27(a)

That section authorizes a district court to exercise "supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. S 1367(a). ... Ther efore, the District Court had the authority for its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Medemer ge and the physician defendants.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to state-law theories that are tightly linked to federal theories as part of a single controversy.

Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., and Motorola Lighting, Inc. · filed 2001-06-25(a)

That is why the state-law theories came within the supplemental jurisdiction, which depends on such a tight link among state and federal theories that they form part of a single controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a court with original jurisdiction over a federal claim supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that form part of the same case or controversy.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Mississippi Central Railroad · filed 2001-07-18(a)

Further, the court finds that the Plaintiffs remaining claims are so related to the Plaintiffs federal claim that they form part of the same case or controversy. As such, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over all of the Plaintiffs claims, and the Defendants’ assertion that federal jurisdiction does not exist in this cause is without merit.

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

Estates of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Authority · filed 2001-07-24(a)

Thus, the federal claim and the state law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim closely related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction so that they form part of the same controversy.

Estate of Coggins Ex Rel. Madis v. Wagner Hopkins, Inc. · filed 2001-08-03(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction is to be exercised “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 under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiffs notice requirement claim is so closely related to its claims in tort that it forms part of the same controversy. I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising from a common nucleus of operative fact with substantial federal claims.

Estate of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios · filed 2001-08-10(a)

The Court finds that the allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress within Count VI arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact with Plaintiffs substantial federal claims of Counts I, III, and IV, as each of these claims arise out of the alleged brutal killing of Winston Cabello. The Court thus concludes that it has jurisdiction over Count VI.

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

SPRINGTREE APARTMENTS v. Livingston Parish Council · filed 2001-09-21(a)

The non-federal claims are clearly part of the sanie case or controversy. ... Since there clearly is federal- question jurisdiction, the court will accept supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims that arise from the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare · filed 2001-09-28(a)

Because the court has original jurisdiction over this action, and the remaining counts arise out of the same case or controversy, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining counts, in the event that they are not pre-empted by ... ERISA § 514(a), an issue addressed below in the context of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Section 1367(a) requires state and federal claims to arise from a common nucleus of operative facts to form the same case or controversy for supplemental jurisdiction.

Cornett v. Longois · filed 2001-10-01(a)

Aside from being brought against the same defendant, the two claims do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts; the magistrate judge thus did not err in concluding that the claims did not involve the same case or controversy and, consequently, did not abuse his discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim.

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

Moreno v. STP NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. · filed 2001-10-30(a)

Moreno’s remaining claims — relating to STP’s refusal to promote him to a permanent supervisory position- — stem from a common nucleus of operative fact and thus, are also within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over third-party claims only when they form the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Rollin v. Kimberly Clark Tissue Co. · filed 2001-12-13(a)

Kimberly Clark’s third-party claims are not so intimately connected with Plaintiffs claims as to form the same case or controversy, and the Court therefore finds supplemental jurisdiction lacking.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims.

Dutchess/Putnam Restaurant & Tavern Ass'n v. Putnam County Department of Health · filed 2001-12-19(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ related claims arising under New York law is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as long as the state claims are so related to the federal claims that they are part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367 requires state and federal claims to be part of the same case or controversy; claims with different factual and legal bases do not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction.

Bolden v. Summers · filed 2002-01-24

Nor is there supplemental jurisdiction because, as I have already determined, the factual and legal basis of the claims are different from the ERISA claim and do not satisfy the “same case or controversy” requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Learnard v. Inhabitants of Town of Van Buren · filed 2002-01-29(a)

Unlike the other state claims, this claim arises out of the same core facts as the federal due process claim, and thus the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as a federal claim so they can be tried in one proceeding.

Estate of Thurman v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2002-03-29(a)

I have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “that are so related” to federal claims over which I have jurisdiction “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” In the present case plaintiffs state law claims arise out of the same facts as their § 1983 claim and should be tried in one judicial proceeding. Thus, I will retain jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 requires a supplemental claim to be sufficiently related to the federal cause of action to form the same case or controversy.

2922 Sherman Avenue Tenants' Ass'n v. Serafin · filed 2002-06-10

Appellant’s third party complaint was not so related to the federal cause of action that it forms the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) covers state law claims that arise from the same facts as the federal claims.

Dellefave v. Access Temporaries, Inc. · filed 2002-06-17(a)

It is clear that DelleFave’s state law claims “form[ed] part of the same case or controversy” as his federal claims, as all of the claims arose out of the same facts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over matters lacking an independent jurisdictional basis when they involve the same controversy as matters properly before the federal court.

Peter Bay Homeowners Ass'n v. Stillman · filed 2002-06-27(a)

Known as “supplemental jurisdiction,” § 1367 has permitted federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over matters they would normally be precluded from entertaining so long as the supplemental matters are deemed to involve or relate to the same controversy as to matters properly before the federal court.

Section 1367(a) supports reinstating state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy when the federal claims are reinstated.

Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., New York · filed 2002-06-27(a)

Because we reinstate Caiola’s federal claims, we also reinstate his state law claims because they “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367 gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Burns v. City of Kenner · filed 2002-07-30(a)

Finally, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367 provides that federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that form a part of the same case or controversy as that of the federal |3claim. Thus the federal court also had jurisdiction over the state claim.

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

Shekoyan v. Sibley International Corp. · filed 2002-08-16(a)

The plaintiffs federal whistleblower retaliation claim under the FCA and his state statutory claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” namely, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Shekoyan’s employment termination. Therefore, the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) allows a court to hear state-law claims arising from the same controversy as federal claims.

Howard v. Food Lion, Inc. · filed 2002-10-23(a)

The state law claims arise from the same controversy: Plaintiff's termination and subsequent pursuit of unemployment compensation. Judicial economy suggests that they should be adjudicated together.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Munroe v. Compaq Computer · filed 2002-10-18(a)

Since there is no credible argument that Munroe’s state law claim is not related to her federal Title VII claims, this Court has jurisdiction to decide Munroe’s state law claim.

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

Estates of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Pales. Auth. · filed 2002-11-04(a)

Therefore, it likewise has subject matter jurisdiction over those state law claims under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction which “are so related to claims in the action ... that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2000).

Section 1367(a) permits a court to hear state law claims that grow out of the same nucleus of operative facts as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Miller v. PPG Industries, Inc. · filed 2002-12-03(a)

Nevertheless, the Court finds that the occupational license tax and stock options claims grow out of the “same nucleus of operative facts” as the vacation benefits claim. ... Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the remaining claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Wychunas v. O'TOOLE · filed 2003-03-25(a)

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

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

O'Keefe v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC · filed 2003-04-02(a)

We have supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the class members’ state law consumer protection or deceptive trade practice act claims because these claims are part of the same case and controversy as the unjust enrichment and fraud claims.

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

Jones v. City of St. Louis · filed 2003-05-09(a)

Consequently, according to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this court possesses jurisdiction over all of plaintiff's claims. When a federal court has original jurisdiction over a claim that raises a federal question, Section 1367 provides for the mandatory exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims that are so related to the federal-question claim that the claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that share a common factual basis with claims within its original jurisdiction and form part of the same case or controversy.

In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation · filed 2003-06-20(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the district courts 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...." The suits before me present such related claims. They share a common factual basis and will be governed by essentially the same substantive law.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing a common factual basis and essentially the same substantive law as claims within original federal jurisdiction.

Hickey v. City of New York · filed 2003-06-20(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the district courts 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....” The suits before me present such related claims. They share a common factual basis and will be governed by essentially the same substantive law.

Section 1367(a) requires state law claims to be sufficiently related to the remaining federal claims to form the same case or controversy.

Goodell v. Eoff · filed 2003-08-07(a)

The state law claims are not sufficiently related to the remaining federal claims to constitute the same case or controversy, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Levy Ex Rel. UnumProvident Corp. v. Chandler · filed 2003-10-17(a)

Nevertheless, because Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims are sufficiently related to Plaintiffs’ preempted claims to form part of the same case or controversy, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to keep all of Plaintiffs’ claims in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over a corporate plaintiff’s tort claims that arise from the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Pugh v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya · filed 2003-10-27(a)

It is undisputed that Interlease’s conversion and tortious interference claims grow out of the same case or controversy as the individual plaintiffs’ claims. ... Accordingly, to the extent that Interlease’s tort claims are limited to the individual defendants in their personal capacities, the Court concludes that they too may go forward.

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

Elfelt v. United States · filed 2003-10-28(a)

However, since there is jurisdiction under Section 1340, then the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are related to the federal claim and form part of the same case and controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction to review a single arbitration award arising from related proceedings involving nominally different parties when the award forms one case or controversy.

Lefkovitz v. Wagner · filed 2003-11-12(a)

While some of the claims underlying the award involve nominally different parties, the parties include the six principals and the partnerships they formed (Jarnis, NRNH, 29-31 Assoc., etc.). This arbitration award is sufficiently one “case or controversy” to grant this court jurisdiction for review.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim lacking independent diversity jurisdiction when it forms part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Grogan v. O'NEIL · filed 2003-11-21(a)

For these reasons, the Court finds that even if diversity jurisdiction would not otherwise exist as to Count I, that count forms part of the same case or controversy as Counts II and III. Because the Court has diversity jurisdiction over Counts II and III, it has supplemental jurisdiction over Count I under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Obeid v. Meridian Automotive Systems · filed 2003-12-15(a)

Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), federal courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as the claim with original federal jurisdiction. ... All three counts appear to be premised on the same or similar incidents of alleged retaliation and thus, the court finds that they “derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.” ... Accordingly, removal of Plaintiffs state law claims is supported by supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims whose resolution is central to the related federal claims.

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Kline · filed 2004-01-15(a)

Defendants’ arguments urging this court to decline supplemental jurisdiction because the state law claims are not "so related" to the federal claims so as to "form part of the same case or controversy” or that the state claims raise "novel or complex issues of State law” are not persuasive. Determination of the legal incidence of the tax is within the court’s province, regardless of how complex the analysis might be. In addition, resolution of the state claims regarding interpretation of the Kansas motor fuel tax is central to the resolution of plaintiffs' federal claims.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over claims closely related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction when they form part of the same case or controversy.

Virgilio v. Motorola, Inc. · filed 2004-01-30(a)

These are but a few areas of significant interrelation that demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ claims against the City seeking recovery of collateral source obligations are so closely related to their claims against Motorola individually and the Defendants jointly that they form part of the same case and controversy. Since, pursuant to § 408(b)(3), this Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims against Motorola individually and against the Defendants jointly, the Court will, relying upon under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, assert supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the City of New York that Plaintiffs characterize as a civil action to recover collateral source obligations.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over primary liability insurance coverage claims when the coverage is integral to the underlying federal claims.

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases · filed 2004-03-01(a)

To exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the consolidated insurance eases must “form part of the same case or controversy” as the Underlying Cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The unique statutory framework of the Act makes the primary liability insurance a part of any case or controversy brought for damages under it.

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

Bradley v. Ramsey · filed 2004-03-25(a)

Theréfore, Plaintiffs alleged exercise of free speech by reporting Mayor Honeycutt, the May- or’s obtaining the SBI report, the Woodfin Defendants’ disclosing the contents of the report, and Plaintiffs termination, form a “common nucleus of operative facts,” and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) confers upon the Court supplemental jurisdiction over all of Plaintiffs state claims against the Woodfin Defendants.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over an attorney’s claim to enforce a client’s later promissory note for fees when that claim is outside the underlying action’s case or controversy.

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, and O'neill, Lysaght & Sun v. Ferrante · filed 2004-04-06(a)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction could attach following the final termination of the underlying action — an issue we need not address — suffice it to say that OLS’s claim against Ferrante on his promissory note forms no part of the case or controversy underlying the FSLIC action (or the other actions in which notices of liens were filed). Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Williams v. Comcast Cable Vision of New Haven, Inc. · filed 2004-06-01(a)

Even if other counts of Mr. Williams' Complaint were not preempted by the LMRA, and the Court concludes below that they are, the Court would nonetheless be justified in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any non-preempted state law claims since all of Mr. Williams claims 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see Correspondent Servs. Corp. v. First Equities Corp. of Florida, 338 F.3d 119, 126 (2d Cir.2003).

Section 1367(a) requires a state-law claim to share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction.

Guilford Co Bd Education v. City of High Point · filed 2004-06-07(a)

Under these circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that Shavitz’s federal claims and the clear-proceeds claim share a common nucleus of operative fact, as required by section 1367 and Gibbs.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from a different set of facts than the remaining federal claims and thus do not form one case or controversy with them.

American High-Income Trust v. Alliedsignal · filed 2004-08-10(a)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against NationsBanc and AlliedSignal do not arise from the same set of facts that give rise to Plaintiffs’ Securities Act claims against the Director Defendants, and thus do not form one case or controversy with those claims.

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

Harper v. Auto Alliance · filed 2004-12-16(a)

Because these claims shared the same nucleus of operative facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state claims whose underlying facts are unrelated to the remaining federal claim.

Burke v. Gregory · filed 2005-02-14(a)

Any employment agreement that may have existed between the parties, that would form the basis for Plaintiffs unpaid commissions, wages, and earned vacation benefits, will not be part of this ERISA inquiry. Therefore, the facts between these claims are not related, and the Court will decline to take supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs First, Second and Third Causes of Action.

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

Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2005-03-29(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) permits me to adjudicate the state law claims raised by Plaintiffs because those claims 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) (1990).

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

Belini v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA · filed 2005-06-15(a)

Even if the rescission claim could only be brought under state law, the district court would still have supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it is part of the same "case or controversy" as the section 1640 damages claim.

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.

Harris v. Lehigh County Office of Children & Youth Services · filed 2005-06-16(a)

Congress provided that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the 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. ... I will deny Mr. Norton’s motion and assert supplemental jurisdiction over the State law claims against him.

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

United States v. Sequel Contractors, Inc. · filed 2005-11-14(a)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in both Complaints because the state law claims derive from the same operative facts as the FCA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over nonarbitrable claims that form part of the same case or controversy as arbitrable claims within original federal jurisdiction.

Chew v. KPMG, LLP · filed 2006-01-09(a)

A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims for which it has no original jurisdiction if those claims “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). Under the facts of this case, the Court finds that the arbitrable claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction and the nonarbi-trable claims “form part of the same case or controversy.” Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the nonarbitrable claims, and no claims in this case will be severed and remanded to state court.

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.

Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck · filed 2006-03-02(a)

It is beyond cavil that the claim that defendants’ actions violate requirements of New York law is sufficiently related to the RLUIPA claim as to form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against individual defendants arising from the same facts as the federal claims and forming part of the same case or controversy.

McCutchen v. Tipton County · filed 2006-03-10(a)

Accordingly the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against the individual defendants, as they arise out of the same facts and form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a Canadian patent declaratory judgment claim that does not form the same case or controversy as the U.S. patent infringement claims.

Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. · filed 2006-05-08(a)

Although Ideal does not assert that this court has “original” jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim concerning infringement of Rivard Instruments’s Canadian patent, it is nevertheless clear that Mars counsels rejection of Ideal’s argument for “supplemental” jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an impleader claim closely related to the underlying claim as part of the same case or controversy.

Winbco Tank Co. v. Palmer & Cay of Minnesota, LLC · filed 2006-05-17(a)

The impleader claim can be asserted in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction, because the claim is so closely related to the underlying claim that it can be considered part of the same case or controversy.

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

Amato v. KPMG LLP · filed 2006-06-13(a)

Under the facts of this case, we find that the arbitrable claims over which we have original jurisdiction and the nonarbitrable claims “form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case and controversy as federal claims.

Robledo v. City of Chicago · filed 2006-08-09(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, I exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims of inverse condemnation, bailment, and conversion which constitute part of the same case and controversy as plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after that plaintiff’s federal claim is dismissed if the state claims are part of the same case or controversy as remaining federal claims.

Leal v. Sonic-Massey Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc. · filed 2006-08-11(a)

In this regard, it is clear that this Court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over Paquette’s state law claims if they are so related to the remaining federal law claims so as to be part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Although Defendants characterize Paquette’s claims as relating to an entirely separate transaction, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claims is that Defendants engaged in a pattern of deceptive practices and that Plaintiffs, including Paquette, are representative victims of these alleged practices. Under these circumstances, I conclude that Paquette’s state law claims arise out of the same controversy as the Leals’ TILA claims and that it is therefore appropriate for this Court to retain jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the alleged misconduct underlying those claims is a crucial part of the activity giving rise to the federal claims, placing them in the same case or controversy.

Doe v. Faerber Ex Rel. Estate of Faerber · filed 2006-08-14(a)

The Court easily finds that Faerber’s alleged misconduct is the crucial part of the activity that gave rise to the federal claims, and that the state law claims against Faerber are a part of the same case or controversy as the plaintiffs § 1983 and Title IX claims against the School Board.

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

Humann v. KEM Electric Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2006-08-29(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the pendent state claims in Humann’s complaint are related to the FLSA claim and form a part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to hear claims forming part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction, even when diversity is absent.

Santiago v. AUTONOMOUS MUNICIPALITY OF PONCE · filed 2006-09-27(a)

However, given that § 1983 claims have also been asserted in these proceedings, this court has alternate jurisdictional grounds to entertain this ease under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 absent diversity between the parties. Given this setting, we may entertain, under our supplemental jurisdiction, “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to related claims by third-party payors, private payors, and state Medicaid contractors when the court has original jurisdiction over Medicare beneficiary claims.

In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation · filed 2006-10-24(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Arizona’s claims on behalf of the third-party payors, private payors and state Medicaid contractors making drug payments outside of the Medicare Part B program.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to hear a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Providence Health System-Washington v. Bush · filed 2006-11-08(a)

The state court claim may be brought in federal court pursuant to this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over state claims which form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim alleged. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a TCPA claim arising from the same facts as a federal FDCPA claim.

Watson v. NCO Group, Inc. · filed 2006-11-28(a)

Plaintiffs interpretation of Erienet is correct and this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs TCPA claim. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any cause of action that is of the same “case or controversy” as a claim for which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Donaldson v. City of Walterboro Police Department · filed 2006-11-28(a)

Moreover, because 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, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Barrows v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. · filed 2006-12-08(a)

The only claim available for remand it Plaintiffs state law claim against Chase for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the Court will exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim because it is so related to the federal claim that it forms part of the same case or controversy, ... and because judicial economy would not warrant two separate proceedings in state and federal court on these interrelated claims.

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

Djourabchi v. Self · filed 2006-12-14(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over defendant’s counterclaim because it is so related to plaintiffs’ claims, over which the Court has original jurisdiction, as to form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) covers only claims forming part of the same Article III case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; permissive joinder alone does not establish that connection.

Cadleway Properties v. Ossian State Bank · filed 2007-02-15(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction covers only “other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). The claim over which the district court had original jurisdic- tion is the liability of the Small Business Administration. A dispute utterly unrelated to that subject—indeed, unrelated to the loans that the SBA had guaranteed—does not “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

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

McFarland v. Virginia Retirement Services of Chesterfield, L.L.C. · filed 2007-03-06(a)

Here, McFarland’s state claims plainly arise from the same “case or controversy” as her federal FSLA claim, for both the FSLA claim and the state claims arise from the same set of facts, and it would be unreasonable to require that McFarland pursue her claims in two separate judicial proceedings.

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

Grant Thornton, LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2007-03-14(a)

This court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim of plaintiff Gary Ellis under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because it is so related to the claims of the FDIC that it forms part of the same cause or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are unrelated to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Collins v. Sovereign Bank · filed 2007-04-03(a)

Nor is it appropriate for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claims are not “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy,” inasmuch as the federal claims, discussed above, relating to the alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution of plaintiff and the alleged failure to respond to his complaints and/or protect him on the basis of race and/or disability, are not connected to the allegations against the Hoffman Ford Defendants concerning his alleged overpayment for a car and entitlement to the “A Plan” purchase price.

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

Community State Bank v. Strong · filed 2007-04-27(a)

Since the claims-to-be-arbitrated that are reflected in Strong’s usury complaint “arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact with” the declaratory judgment claim, they “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution” and we easily find that the district court has supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a fee dispute between former law partners that is unrelated to the underlying federal case.

Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan & IBM Corp. · filed 2007-06-25(a)

It is unrelated to the dispute between Cooper and IBM, so it cannot be adjudicated under the supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lewis v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2007-12-19(a)

The Court has jurisdiction over Lewis’s Lan-ham Act claim, and thus may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because they are "so related ... that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Plater v. District of Columbia Department of Transportation · filed 2008-01-02(a)

However, because the Court has original jurisdiction over the remaining claims against WMATA, see D.C. Code § 9-1107.01(81), the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against the District because all of plaintiff's claims arise out of the same case and controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims whose allegations form part of the same case or controversy as a surviving federal claim; a facially sufficient connection at the pleading stage supports jurisdiction.

Brown Ex Rel. Thomas v. Fletcher · filed 2008-01-07(a)

Therefore, in order for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over Brown’s state-law claims, it must determine that there is sufficient basis to believe, at this point in the proceedings, that the allegations in these various state-law claims “form part of the same case or controversy” as the allegations in the remaining Rehabilitation Act claim.

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

Cox Ex Rel. Dermitt v. Liberty Healthcare Corp. · filed 2008-01-07(a)

At this early stage of the proceedings, and in light of the lenient notice pleading requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court believes that Cox’s Complaint sets forth a facially sufficient basis for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the eleven state-law claims.

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

EBI-Detroit, Inc. v. City of Detroit · filed 2008-05-22(a)

EBI primarily raised state-law claims, but EBI’s allegation that Kilpatrick broke federal law brings the entire case into federal court because all of EBI’s claims are part of the same “case or controversy.”

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

Doe I v. Individuals · filed 2008-06-13(a)

However, this Court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States;” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and may 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). Thus, since the Court properly has jurisdiction over the copyright claim, which arises from the same case or controversy as the various state law tort and statutory claims, the Court also has subject matter jurisdiction as these state law claims, which arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact” namely, the alleged harassment of Doe Í and Doe II on AutoAdmit.com and other web sites.

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

Lozada v. Regal Ware, Inc. · filed 2008-07-02(a)

Thus, the Court finds that the alleged discriminatory conduct is the common nucleus of operative fact for Plaintiffs federal and state claims, and concludes that the claims are so related that they form part of the same case and controversy. Accordingly, the Court holds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, and none of the grounds enumerated in § 1367(c) for declining supplemental jurisdiction exist.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share facts with federal claims in the same action.

WTC Families for a Proper Burial, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 2008-07-07(a)

And due to ... the similarity between the federal and state law claims and the facts giving rise to both, the state law claims are properly before me also pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims 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”).

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

Johnson v. Garza · filed 2008-07-11(a)

But with two of Johnson’s federal constitutional attacks having survived, supplemental jurisdiction continues to exist over Johnson’s state law malicious prosecution claim because it “form[s] part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution” (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same case or controversy as federal claims when their underlying facts are inextricably tied.

Doe v. NORWICH ROMAN CATHOLIC CORP. · filed 2009-01-16(a)

The facts underlying Plaintiffs RICO claims are inextricably tied up with the facts giving rise to the state-law claims — indeed, the complaint incorporates the state-law allegations by reference in the two RICO counts — and so the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the non-federal claims because they are all part of the same case or controversy.

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

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2009-02-26(a)

Because the District Court has jurisdiction over the contract clause claim, it also has jurisdiction over all of the claims because they all arise from the same core of operative facts.

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

Doe I v. Ciolli · filed 2009-04-30(a)

Moreover, as this Court previously found, all of the plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact, and therefore the Court has jurisdiction over all of the claims.

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

Ledford v. Peeples · filed 2009-05-22(a)

Second, the court therefore had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 136781 to adjudicate any other claims DynaVision had against Peeples that were “so related to” the Count One claims that they formed part of “the same case or controversy.”

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

Ledford v. Peeples · filed 2009-05-22(a)

DynaVision’s claims in Counts Two through Seven, given the manner in which the complaint presented them,... appear to have been so related to DynaVision’s Count One’s allegations, that they formed part of the same case or controversy described in Count One.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims whose factual and legal foundations substantially differ from those of the federal claims.

Valles v. Pima County · filed 2009-07-31(a)

The Fifth Amendment Takings claim and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim asserted against Pima County involve substantially different factual and legal foundations compared to the state law negligence claims asserted against Hosack and Desert Vista Engineering; the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims asserted against Hosack and Desert Vista Engineering and these parties are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

O'BRIEN v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2009-08-05(a)

Thus, an inquiry whether supplemental jurisdiction exists over state-law claims need only examine whether the state claims are so closely related to the federal claim that the state claims form part of the same Article III case or controversy as the federal claim.

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

Hukic v. Aurora Loan Services · filed 2009-11-20(a)

Section 1367(a), not section 1367(c), is the relevant provision for our jurisdictional question. ... The notice of removal and attached complaint make clear that all of Hukic’s claims arise out of the servicing of Hukic’s mortgage loan by Aurora and Ocwen and the reports those entities made to credit reporting agencies, and the claims arise out of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional challenge to an ordinance when the claims satisfy the same-case-or-controversy requirement.

Coalition for the Abolition v. City of Atlanta · filed 2000-07-27(a)

The appellants’ state law claims satisfy the “same case and controversy” requirement of section 1367(a); therefore, the district court had the power to consider the appellants’ claim that the 1994 Festival Ordinance violated the Georgia Constitution.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims in the same case or controversy as federal claims even when diversity jurisdiction is absent.

Gray v. Fidelity Investment · filed 2022-05-11(a)

The complaint also alleges a series of transgressions that generally constitute the same claim or controversy. Supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of plaintiff’s claims would therefore be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 even if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 were not met.

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

West v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2022-05-17(a)

Because Plaintiff’s state law claims form part of the same case or controversy as his federal claims, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form the same case or controversy as claims already within the court’s jurisdiction.

Renato v. Beaulieu · filed 2022-05-20(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a Court that otherwise has jurisdiction to hear the claims in a case—for example, where a federal question is presented—may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that constitute the same case or controversy. ... Defendants Watt and Fleetwood-Watt do not establish that Mr. Renato’s claims against them cannot be part of his case or controversy against the other defendants.

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

Harding v. Grisham · filed 2022-05-23(a)

“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. “A claim is part of the same case or controversy if it derives from a common nucleus of operative fact.” Pettigrew v. Okla., 722 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Price v. Wolford, 608 F.3d 698, 702-03 (10th Cir. 2010)). That standard is satisfied here where Plaintiff’s state and federal claims all arise out of the same factual allegations. Dkt. No. 2-2 at 4, 5. Therefore, in addition to original jurisdiction, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims included in his Petition.

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

Streamtech Engineering LLC v. Horcher · filed 2022-05-27(a)

StreamTech’s remaining claims are so related to its DTSA claim that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy, and as such the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state law claims that are not so related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Johnson v. Rose M. Singer Center · filed 2022-05-31(a)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may be asserting against these defendants because such state law claims are not “so related to” Plaintiff’s claims in which the Court “has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Johnson v. Carter · filed 2022-05-31(a)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may be asserting against these defendants because such state law claims are not “so related to” Plaintiff’s claims in which the Court “has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims whose facts are too unrelated to the federal claim to form part of the same case or controversy.

Ol Private Counsel v. Olson · filed 2022-06-01(a)

The facts relevant to Ol Private’s CFAA claim are thus essentially unrelated to the facts relevant to Olson’s counterclaims. The claims are simply too unrelated to be deemed part of the same case or controversy for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state open-records claim seeking documents about the same orders and policy at issue in federal claims, even when the records request followed the arrest by eight months.

Hassan v. City of Atlanta · filed 2022-06-01(a)

The Court disagrees: the Plaintiff sought documents and communications from the City regarding the same Orders and the same Media Policy at issue in his federal claims. ... The eight-month gap between the Plaintiffs arrest and his records request does not undermine their fundamental relatedness.

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

Prejean v. Dischbein · filed 2022-06-02(a)

Here, Plaintiff’s rental deposit claims arise out of the same set of facts as her Fair Housing Act claim. Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the same.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a nonfederal crossclaim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with an interpleader claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

SUNZ Insurance Company v. Butler American Holdings Inc. · filed 2022-06-06(a)

Because Payday’s crossclaim is so intertwined with the original interpleader claim, the district court did not err in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the nonfederal claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same case or controversy as claims remaining under federal law.

Zubko-Valva v. The County of Suffolk · filed 2022-06-15(a)

As some of the federal law claims against the CPS Defendants and Suffolk County remain in this case, I have supplemental jurisdiction over Mrs. Valva’s state law claims against the CPS Defendants and Suffolk County because they arise out of the “same case or controversy” as the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against different defendants when they arise from the same case or controversy as surviving federal claims, and lets the court retain those claims.

Zubko-Valva v. The County of Suffolk · filed 2022-06-17(a), (c)

These claims arise from the “same case or controversy” as the state law claims against the School Defendants: the failure of public entities to intervene in the abuse of Mrs. Valva’s children by Mr. Valva and Ms. Pollina that resulted in Tommy’s death. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). I thus have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the School Defendants and decline to exercise my discretion to dismiss them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, even after the federal claim is dismissed.

Shehee v. Kings Furniture · filed 2022-06-17(a)

The Magistrate Judge believes that the claims left in the Complaint are within the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court because they are part of the same case or controversy with the now-dismissed FDCPA claim.

Section 1367(a) requires courts to identify state and federal claims with enough particularity to determine whether they form part of the same case or controversy before exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Anand v. Independence Blue Cross · filed 2022-06-29(a)

Nevertheless, the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this case may be inconsistent with its dismissal of Anand’s entire amended complaint under Rule 8 because the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction requires courts to identify a plain- tiff’s state and federal claims with enough particularity to determine that they “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as constitutional claims.

Cerf v. Parinello · filed 2022-07-01(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cerf’s state-law claims against Parinello because the claims are part of the same case or controversy that form the basis of his constitutional claims.

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

Bruno v. U.S. Renal Care, Inc. · filed 2022-07-05(a)

The court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action, as all claims relate to Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant and “form part of the same case or controversy” as the FCRA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that arises from the same case or controversy as a federal claim.

Pace v. Marion · filed 2022-07-07(a)

Because this claim arises from the same case or controversy as Count 1, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 2 and allow it to proceed, at least for now, against the warden.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim arising out of the same controversy as an FLSA claim.

Williams v. Road Scholar Staffing, Inc. · filed 2022-07-11(a)

Because the breach of contract claim arises out of the same controversy as the FLSA claim, it is properly before the Court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction; having the same parties does not make distinct controversies related enough.

Lee v. Hurd · filed 2022-07-13(a)

Nor does the Court have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. That statute applies only to claims “so related” within the Court’s jurisdiction “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Id. “A claim is part of the same case or controversy if it ‘derive[s] from a common nucleus of operative fact.’” Price v. Wolford, 608 F.3d 698, 702–03 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997)). The child support claims do not form part of the same case or controversy as the property and contract claims. The latter claims concern 2003 agreements to share interest in the Property (claims one and two) and the horse-breeding operation (claim three). The child support claim concerns non-payment of statutory child- support obligations between 2006 and 2021. The parties are the same, but the controversies are distinct. Claim four is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

Padded Spaces LLC v. Weiss · filed 2022-07-22(a)

It has supplemental jurisdiction over Padded Spaces’s state-law claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices, common law trade dress infringement, and common law unfair competition because those claims are “so related” to the patent, trade dress, and false designation claims as to “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only when they are part of the same case or controversy as the surviving federal claims.

Davis v. Hall · filed 2022-07-26(a)

Second, the Court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims “that are so related to claims in the action…that they form part of the same case or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The proposed state-law claims are not ancillary to Davis’s surviving claims. That is, they do not arise from the same transactions.

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

Cooley v. P & C Motel Corp. · filed 2022-08-02(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because they are “so related” to his federal claim that “they form part of the same case or controversy[.]” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).