28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Farmers Union Service Association of South Dakota v. Murphy · filed 2025-11-17(a)

A federal court in some instances may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim. After all, the test for supplemental jurisdiction is whether the claims form part of the “same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), while the test for compulsory counterclaims is more limited to “the same transaction or occurrence,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a)(1).

Section 1367(a) generally permits supplemental jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim without an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

3 Step Sports LLC v. Vanguard Elite Volleyball Academy · filed 2025-11-25(a)

Compulsory counterclaims (as contrasted with permissive counterclaims) generally fall within the supplemental jurisdiction of a district court and do not require an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim when it shares key factual allegations with the original claim.

RHODES · filed 2026-03-12(a)

That overlap in key factual allegations is enough for supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 covers compulsory counterclaims arising from the same facts as the plaintiff’s claims.

Rigby · filed 2026-05-04

Defendant’s counterclaims arise out of the same facts as Plaintiff’s claims and are therefore compulsory counterclaims falling under § 1367.

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to claims against nonconsenting states.

Balsam v. Secretary of the State of NJ · filed 2015-04-08(a)

Moreover, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not authorize district courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against non-consenting States.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from state-law claims.

ALTICE USA, INC. v. NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES · filed 2020-01-22

While Congress has enacted a supplemental jurisdiction statute allowing for state law claims to be heard in federal court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this federal statute does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from state law claims.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from supplemental state-law claims in federal court.

Igbinovia v. Dzurenda · filed 2020-06-01

In Stanley v. Trustees of California State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims. ... For this reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff must raise his state law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in state court and dismisses the claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims when the state has not consented to suit in federal court.

Winn v. Dzurenda · filed 2020-09-17

In Stanley v. Trustees of California State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims. ... Although the State of Nevada may consent to federal court jurisdiction for state law claims through removal, this is not a removed case. ... For this reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff must raise any state law tort claim in state court and dismisses this claim without prejudice.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims against an unconsenting state.

Edwards v. Estill · filed 2020-10-26

In Stanley v. Trustees of California State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 18 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign 19 immunity for supplemental state law claims. Id. at 1133-34. Although the State of Nevada 20 may consent to federal court jurisdiction for state law claims through removal, this is not 21 a removed case. See Lapides v. Bd. of Univ. Sys. Of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (holding 22 that state’s removal of suit to federal court constitutes waiver of its sovereign immunity). 23 For this reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff must raise his state law claims in state 24 court and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 does not overcome state sovereign immunity, even when it otherwise authorizes supplemental jurisdiction.

Robinson v. Chamberlain · filed 2021-03-09

“State sovereign immunity bars actions in federal court regardless of the basis for otherwise appropriate subject matter jurisdiction.” Montin, 846 F.3d at 293; see Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541-42 (2002) (holding the Eleventh Amendment bars actions in federal court even where 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in general, authorizes supplemental jurisdiction). Thus, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the official-capacity claims alleged in Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting states.

Rohde v. University of Central Oklahoma Board of Regents · filed 2021-09-30(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction does not authorize district courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting states, however.

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so supplemental jurisdiction cannot overcome an Eleventh Amendment bar.

Matsko v. The State of New York · filed 2022-01-14(a)

Although it is not abundantly clear to the Court how Plaintiff's arguments relate to this issue, to the extent Plaintiff is suggesting that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) constitutes a congressional abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment, Plaintiff is incorrect.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Perez v. Daniels · filed 2022-02-28

In Stanley v. Trustees of California State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims. ... For this reason, the Court finds that Perez must raise his state law negligence claim in state court and dismisses that claim accordingly.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state tort claim when sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction over a necessary state party.

Swaim v. State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2023-02-03

If the Court lacks jurisdiction over a necessary party to a pendant state tort claim, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a State that has not waived sovereign immunity.

GAGE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION · filed 2024-03-12(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) “does not ‘authorize district courts to exercise courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting States, even though nothing in the statute ... expressly excludes such claims.’” ... As NJDEP has not waived its sovereign immunity, any state law claims are barred by this doctrine as well.

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against a state defendant that has not consented to suit.

Rosado v. Chattahoochee Valley Community College · filed 2024-03-29

The court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Rosado’s state-law AADEA claim. The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “does not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants.”

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate state sovereign immunity or authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Muhammad v. Louisiana Housing Corporation · filed 2024-07-26(a)

In enacting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), Congress did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity and this Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are otherwise barred by the 11th Amendment.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Nunn v. Ely State Prison · filed 2024-11-25

The Ninth Circuit has explicitly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, “does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.” Stanley v. Trustees of California State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1133–34 (9th Cir. 2006). So I dismiss defendants State of Nevada and the Department of Corrections with prejudice from the complaint as amendment would be futile.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Spikes v. State of Nevada · filed 2025-01-23

The Ninth Circuit has explicitly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, “does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.” ... Therefore, Plaintiff cannot bring any claims against Defendants State of Nevada or Parole and Probation and the Court dismisses these Defendants from the entirety of the case with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity, so supplemental jurisdiction does not permit a federal court to hear a state law claim against an immune state agency.

Brown v. Rose · filed 2019-03-12

However, the Supreme Court has held that Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity in the Supplemental Jurisdiction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... It has been well-established that states and their agencies are protected by the Eleventh Amendment’s immunity against federal courts exercising pendent jurisdiction over state law claims. ... As such, this Court dismisses Count VIII in its entirety.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state-law claims.

Glover v. Howell · filed 2021-06-02

In Stanley v. Trustees of California State University, the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state-law claims. ... And while the State of Nevada may consent to federal-court jurisdiction for state-law claims through removal, ... this is not a removed case. ... So I find that Glover must raise his negligence claim in state court, and I dismiss Glover’s complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend in this court.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Simmons v. Nevada System of Higher Education · filed 2020-02-06

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which ... is silent as to sovereign immunity. The statute is a far cry from the “unmistakably clear” language required for abrogation. ... The court declines to deviate from this ... precedent. Accordingly, plaintiff’s state law claims—causes of action two through five—are ... dismissed.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign when the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act preserves its immunity.

Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. Republic of Philippines · filed 1992-06-24(a)

Title 28 U.S.Code § 1330(a) restricts suits against foreign sovereigns to those cases in which the sovereign is not entitled to immunity. Under § 1604, immunity exists except as provided in §§ 1605–1607. Thus, the exception contained in the first clause of § 1367(a) applies here.

Section 1367(a) does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign when the FSIA preserves its immunity.

Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. The Republic of the Philippines and the Philippines Presidential Commission on Goo · filed 1992-07-08(a)

Title 28 U.S.Code § 1330(a) restricts suits against foreign sovereigns to those cases in which the sovereign is not entitled to immunity. Under § 1604, immunity exists except as provided in §§ 1605-1607. Thus, the exception contained in the first clause of § 1367(a) applies here.

Section 1367 does not enlarge the Tucker Act’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims against the United States.

US Ex Rel. Fallon v. Accudyne Corp. · filed 1995-06-19

Furthermore, this limited waiver of immunity cannot be altered as suggested by the defendants through application of supplemental jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not permit a supplemental state-law claim against the United States without its express consent to that claim.

Mafrige v. United States · filed 1995-07-06

Supplemental jurisdiction generally allows a federal court with jurisdiction over a claim to hear a pendent state claim which it could not otherwise hear, but the doctrine presupposes that a valid state claim exists. There can be no valid state claim against the federal sovereign unless it has expressly consented to such a claim.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over related claims but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Wilkerson v. United States · filed 1995-10-23(a)

Section 1367(a), however, deals only with the federal courts' power to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims and does not operate as a waiver of the United States sovereign immunity.

Section 1367(b) does not bar a plaintiff’s claim against a party joined under Rule 19 when original jurisdiction over the action rests on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as well as diversity.

Clarendon, Ltd. v. State Bank of Saurashtra · filed 1996-02-23(b)

Because jurisdiction over Clarendon’s cause of action against SBS was founded also on the FSIA, this is not an action in which jurisdiction is founded solely on diversity. Accordingly, the bar of § 1367(b) to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would not apply if Clarendon were asserting claims directly against SSIL.

Section 1367(a) cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state unless the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act permits jurisdiction over that claim.

Nordmann v. Thai Airways Intern., Ltd. · filed 1997-04-23(a)

Thus, a federal court cannot assert jurisdiction, supplemental or otherwise, over a claim against a foreign state in the absence of jurisdiction under the FSIA.

Section 1367 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

Herman v. Excel Corp. · filed 1999-02-09

In addition, neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1367 constitute or contain a waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not expand jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to claims against a foreign state for which sovereign immunity remains.

Dar El-Bina Engineering & Contracting Co. v. Republic of Iraq · filed 2000-01-07(a)

In consequence, this Court holds that the jurisdiction conferred on the district courts by the FSIA may not be expanded by application of Section 1367(a) and the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not waive federal sovereign immunity; a claim within supplemental jurisdiction remains subject to sovereign immunity requirements.

Raymond Proffitt Foundation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2001-11-20

Plaintiffs also request that I exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state constitutional claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, claims heard under the district court's discretionary supplemental jurisdiction are still subject to the requirements of sovereign immunity.

Section 1367 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Ireland v. Suffolk County of New York · filed 2003-01-22

Supplemental jurisdiction, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1367(a) cannot waive sovereign immunity unless Congress specifically allows it.

Palmer v. Commissioner · filed 2003-03-27(a)

But that argument lacks merit because § 1367(a) cannot be used to waive sovereign immunity unless specifically allowed by Congress.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against a state agency unless the state has waived its immunity from suit.

Zahran Ex Rel. Zahran v. New York Department of Education · filed 2004-02-10(a)

Therefore, only if Article 89 contains a clear waiver of New York’s constitutionally guaranteed immunity from suit will supplemental jurisdiction be proper. No evidence of such waiver has been offered by plaintiffs or otherwise found.

Section 1367(a) does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity or grant jurisdiction over a claim against it without a waiver.

United States v. Certain Land Situated In The City Of Detroit · filed 2004-03-09(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This provision does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Stanley v. Trustees of Ca · filed 2006-01-10

Thus, we hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for sup- plemental state law claims.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Trista Stanley, an Individual v. Trustees of the California State University California State University, Sacramento · filed 2006-01-11

Thus, we hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(d) does not toll the limitations period for state-law claims barred from federal court by the Eleventh Amendment.

Lynch v. Massachusetts State Senate · filed 2007-07-09(d)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) does not toll the running of a statute of limitations for claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Dunn & Black Ps v. United States · filed 2007-07-10(a)

Similarly, § 1367 merely grants federal courts sup- plemental jurisdiction over state claims related to certain federal claims in any civil action of which the district court has original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and that section cannot “operate as a waiver of the United States sovereign immunity,” Wilkerson, 67 F.3d at 119 n.13.

Section 1367(a) does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit without its consent.

Frank v. University of Toledo · filed 2007-12-28(a)

The State of Ohio enjoys sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. A state retains this immunity unless it consents to being sued. ... A federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) does not override this principle.

Section 1367 does not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.

Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation · filed 2008-01-14

The Supreme Court has held that Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity in the Supplemental Jurisdiction Act, ... and we find no indication Congress intended a contrary result with respect to tribal sovereign immunity under this statute.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a state that has not consented to suit in federal court.

Vaden v. Connecticut · filed 2008-07-08(a)

The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the contention that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) functions, as plaintiff implies, as an abrogation of sovereign immunity permitting otherwise-barred claims to be brought in federal court via supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Boritz v. United States · filed 2010-02-23(a)

Section 1367 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States.

Section 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction but does not waive sovereign immunity.

Villegas v. United States · filed 2013-01-30

In fact, supplemental jurisdiction is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Regardless, even if subject matter jurisdiction were proper under § 1367, it too does not waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1367 does not override Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity or authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a nonconsenting state.

Pagan v. Rico · filed 2014-01-15

But again, what the Commonwealth Defendants say is that § 1367 does not override their sovereign immunity with respect to the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. And the plaintiffs fail to respond to this eminently correct argument.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

V. Real Estate Group, Inc. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2015-01-09(a)

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction for claims related to an action over which the court has original jurisdiction, but it does not provide any waiver of immunity.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over contract claims against a federal agency only if Congress has also waived sovereign immunity for those claims.

Hajro v. Uscis · filed 2016-01-19

Conversely, if the district court here wished to avail itself of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it would need a congressional waiver of sovereign immunity to enforce the 1992 Agreement against the federal government.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over closely related claims but does not waive federal sovereign immunity.

Tony L. Kight, Sr. v. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia · filed 2017-03-09(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides district courts with supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are closely related to those over which the district court may have original jurisdiction, but does not waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1367's grant of supplemental jurisdiction does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Obataiye-Allah v. Steward · filed 2020-03-31

Moreover, even though Congress has vested this court with supplemental jurisdiction ... Congress has not abrogated Eleventh ... Amendment immunity through such grant of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims brought by private citizens against nonconsenting state entities.

Tate v. Zaleski · filed 2020-04-15(a)

The Supreme Court held in Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota that federal courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims being pursued by private citizens against non-consenting State entities. 534 U.S. 533, 541-542 (2002). As such, the Board cannot be sued in federal court for state law claims without their consent. The Court finds the Board has not consented to such a suit, nor has it waived its immunities.

Section 1367(a) does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over a state tort claim when state law makes the state an indispensable party and sovereign immunity prevents its joinder in federal court.

Moten v. Dzurenda · filed 2020-07-20(a)

Although this Court generally does not have original jurisdiction over state law claims involving only residents of Nevada, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state law claims in limited circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the Court may not do that here. ... Thus, the State of Nevada is an indispensable party in such a tort claim. ... However, the State of Nevada has not waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and therefore may not be sued in federal court for a state law tort claim. ... Therefore, any tort claims, including medical malpractice, that Plaintiff seeks to bring based on the facts alleged in the complaint must be brought in state court, not federal court.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims against a nonconsenting state defendant because sovereign immunity bars those claims.

Fergus v. Minnesota Office of Higher Education · filed 2022-10-05(a)

Fergus argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides for supplemental federal jurisdiction over pendent state claims, makes the exercise of federal jurisdiction over her MHRA claim appropriate. This is not correct. Supplemental jurisdiction does not trump sovereign immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a state that has not waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Hossain v. Job Service North Dakota · filed 2023-04-11(a)

This court has jurisdiction over Hossain’s state law claims only if the State of North Dakota has waived its sovereign immunity as guaranteed under the Eleventh Amendment, since “§ 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction does not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants.” Id. at 541.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a state entity that has not consented to suit in federal court.

HAYES v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2023-04-19(a)

District courts do not, however, have “jurisdiction to hear supplemental state law claims against sovereign entities absent consent by the entity to suit in federal court.” Garcia v. Richard Stockton Coll. of New Jersey, 210 F. Supp. 2d 545, 550 (D.N.J. 2002) (citing Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541–42 (2002)); see also Balsam v. Sec’y of New Jersey, 607 F. App’x 177, 183 (3d Cir. 2015) (“[T]he supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not authorize district courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against non-consenting States.”).

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to claims against state defendants that have not consented to suit in federal court.

Lee v. West Virginia University · filed 2023-04-20(a)

Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction cannot overcome the WVU defendants’ sovereign immunity and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Dr. Lee’s claims against them.

Section 1367 does not itself abrogate federal sovereign immunity; another statute must supply a waiver.

Glimp v. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, The · filed 2023-10-10

In the absence of another statute to act as the basis of a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court finds that § 1367 does not abrogate sovereign immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against the United States when sovereign immunity has not been waived.

Pietryka v. United States · filed 2025-02-06(a)

The United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for state law claims not sounding on tort and the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the PWPCL claim against the United States.

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from state law claims in federal court.

Jordan v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services · filed 2025-06-18(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) does not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not override federal sovereign immunity or permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a federal agency solely because the court has diversity jurisdiction over a related claim.

McIntyre v. United States Indian Health Service · filed 2025-10-21(a)

In any event, § 1367(a), as a general jurisdiction statute, cannot override sovereign immunity.

Section 1367 does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity.

US ex rel. Sargent v. Collins · filed 2026-01-22

Moreover, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not waive sovereign immunity and therefore would not change our analysis in any event.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to claims against a state defendant that has not consented to suit.

Kaplan v. New York State Department of Labor · filed 2019-07-19(a)

It subsequently confirmed that “§ 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction does not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants.” Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533, 541-42, (2002). ... As such, Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against DOL and Commissioner Reardon for discrimination and retaliation must be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

United States v. Certain Land Situated · filed 2004-03-09(a)

This provision does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1367 does not allow a district court to remand supplemental state law claims to state court when the case was filed in federal court.

Streambend Properties II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC · filed 2015-03-30(c)(2)

We reject this contention because a district court has no...power to remand a non-removed case to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand an entire removed case when supplemental state law claims raise novel state law issues or substantially predominate over federal claims.

Administaff, Inc. v. Kaster · filed 1992-07-22(c)(1), (c)(2)

Read in light of the Supreme Court’s expansion of its foremost case on pendent jurisdiction, United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, to allow remand of pendent claims as well as dismissal when a “case properly belongs in state court,” Section 1367(c) authorizes a district court to remand a case whenever it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim under Section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) does not authorize a discretionary remand of part of an action properly removed under § 1441(d) while the claims against the foreign state remain.

In re Surinam Airways Holding Co. · filed 1992-09-23(c)

This absolute right to a federal forum necessarily requires that the federal court exercise its jurisdiction over the entire action properly removed under § 1441(d). ... For the reasons set forth above, we now direct the district court to rescind that portion of its order remanding the plaintiffs’ claims to state court on the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims but does not authorize remand of properly removed federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hunter Ex Rel. Conyer v. Estate of Baecher · filed 1995-11-20(c)

Under Section 1367, original jurisdiction is a prerequisite to establishing supplemental jurisdiction; however, declining supplemental jurisdiction cannot divest a district court of its original jurisdiction properly invoked through the removal of an originally state-court-filed claim.

Section 1367(c) does not authorize a district court to remand a properly removed federal claim to state court.

City of Mobile, In Re: · filed 1996-01-31(c)

Section 1367(c) cannot be fairly read as bestowing on district courts the discretion to remand to a state court a case that includes a properly removed federal claim.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to retain or remand supplemental state-law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction have ended.

Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc. · filed 1996-12-17

At this point, the court's remand authority switches from that under § 1452 to that under § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand supplemental state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed from a removed case.

Long v. Bando Manufacturing of America, Inc. · filed 2000-01-13(c)

We also note that the district court had the authority to remand rather than dismiss Long's state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... We agree with the analysis of the D.C. Circuit and hold that the district court acted properly in remanding rather than dismissing Long's case.

Section 1367 permits remand of supplemental state law claims after dismissal of the claims supporting original jurisdiction, but remand based on an erroneous dismissal is an abuse of discretion.

Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi · filed 2000-01-26(c)(3)

However, where a district court erroneously dismisses the claims providing original jurisdiction, for instance, by improperly granting summary judgment, it abuses its discretion in remanding the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) lets a district court that declines supplemental jurisdiction dismiss a case or remand it to state court if it was removed and the statutory conditions are met.

Hinson v. Norwest Financial South Carolina, Incorporated · filed 2001-02-06(c)

In short, we conclude that under the authority of 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c), authorizing a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a district court has inherent power to dismiss the case or, in cases removed from State court, to remand, provided the conditions set forth in S 1367(c) for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction have been met.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain state law claims supplemental to surviving federal claims and to dismiss related state law claims without prejudice when it dismisses the federal claims.

Boyd v. Anderson · filed 2003-05-09

Where this court dismisses a federal law claim brought by the plaintiffs, it will also dismiss state law claims that are supplemental to that particular federal claim, without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to refile the supplemental claim in state court. This court will retain jurisdiction over the state law claims that are supplemental to federal claims it finds to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and will allow the plaintiffs to pursue these supplemental state law claims to the extent that they have met the procedural prerequisites established by state statute to bring such claims against the defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain or remand a supplemental state-law claim after the federal claims are resolved.

Omosegbon, Oladele v. Wells, Richard H. · filed 2003-07-14(c)(3)

One option for us would there- fore be to remand this case to the district court to give it an opportunity to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decide whether to retain the supple- mental claim or to remand it. Under the circumstances, however, we believe that this would be a waste of judi- cial resources.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that lacks its own Article III standing.

Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd. · filed 2010-05-28(a)

However, each of the claims over which a district court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction must have standing on its own.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims joined with claims within original federal jurisdiction, but that supplemental basis ends when severance leaves the state claim without a federal claim to which it relates.

Louisiana v. American National Property & Casualty Co. · filed 2014-03-26(a)

Section 1367 grants the district court the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims that have been joined “in the action within such original jurisdiction.” Thus, when the related state claim is severed from the federal claim, the once-upon-a-time related claim is no longer a related claim because there is no federal claim to which it can relate; nor does the claim any longer supplement the federal claim, and supplemental jurisdiction was the only support for its brief federal life.

Section 1367 does not permit a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a territorial-law claim that was not pleaded.

Bryan v. Fawkes · filed 2014-10-24

In this case, it is readily apparent that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order or injunction based solely on its interpretation of Virgin Islands law. As indicated earlier, the complaints filed by Hansen and the five voters raised exclusively federal claims; at no point did they ever request that the District Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider whether a restraining order or injunction should issue based on Virgin Islands statutory law.

Section 1367(c) makes remand of supplemental state-law claims discretionary rather than jurisdictional, so the court may reconsider such a remand.

Hudson v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2021-06-11(c)

Although remands for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are not subject to review because of § 1447(d), remanding supplemental claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is an exercise of a district court’s discretion and is not a jurisdictional matter.

Section 1367(c) supplies a mechanism to remand a state law claim heard through supplemental jurisdiction, but does not supply that mechanism when the court has diversity jurisdiction.

Bauer v. Charter Schools USA, Inc. · filed 2022-07-13(c)

The court had jurisdiction over the state law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction, under which 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provided a mechanism for remand. See id. * 7. There is no such applicable mechanism for remand in this case. Therefore, the dismissal rather than remand is required.

Section 1367 has no role when the plaintiff advances only Section 1983 claims.

FULLMAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2023-10-17

Fullman does not appear to advance any claims other than his claims under Section 1983, so Section 1367 does no work here.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand supplemental state-law claims when they predominate and raise novel, complex state-law issues.

LA Assoc Gen Contr v. City of New Orleans · filed 1996-12-16(c)

However, the court nonetheless concluded that the suit should be remanded because the state law claims predominated over the federal claims in the initial complaint and because the state law claims are “novel and complex.”... We find the district court’s decision well within its discretion and in accordance with applicable law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (supplemental jurisdiction statute).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims in a removed case after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Long v. Bando Mfg of Amer · filed 2000-01-13(c)

We also note that the district court had the authority to remand rather than dismiss Long’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 supplemental jurisdiction does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Texas Hospital Ass'n v. National Heritage Insurance · filed 1992-08-04

Thus, the fact that Plaintiffs have pied Section 1983 claims and the fact that Plaintiffs’ state claims would otherwise come within this Court’s jurisdiction via Section 1367 supplemental jurisdiction have no effect on the Defendants’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over any claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims accompanying Title VII claims, but does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims against a state or its officials in their official capacities.

Ballou v. University of Kansas Medical Center · filed 1994-12-05

While it is true that immunity has been abrogated and Title VII claims may be brought against states, see Barger v. State of Kansas, 630 F.Supp. 88, 89 (D.Kan.1985), and while it is also true that the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when original jurisdiction is based on Title VII, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it does not follow that such state law claims are therefore not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for state law claims against a state agency or a state official in an official capacity.

Walton v. DIVISION OF REVENUE, FOR STATE OF DEL. · filed 1997-04-01(a)

However, where the state claims are against the agency or the official in an official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars the exercise of federal jurisdiction over the party, the Eleventh Amendment also bars the federal court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367’s grant of supplemental jurisdiction does not abrogate or override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Doran by and Through Doran v. Condon · filed 1997-11-21

Therefore, the grant of supplemental jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 cannot displace the Eleventh Amendment’s explicit limitations on federal jurisdiction, and thus section 1367 does not waive the State of Nebraska’s immunity from suit against Plaintiffs’ tort claims in this case.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity from state-law claims in federal court.

Freeman v. Oakland Unified School District · filed 1999-07-01

28 U.S.C. § 1367 is not a congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity.

Section 1367 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from supplemental state-law claims in federal court.

Snodderly v. Kansas · filed 1999-11-19

Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity from suit in federal court in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the statute codifying the common-law doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction; ... the grant of supplemental jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 cannot override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims seeking to enjoin state officials for violating state law when the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

Henrietta D. v. Giuliani · filed 2000-01-24

State defendants are correct in noting that the Supreme Court in Perm-hurst held the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from enjoining state officials from violating state law. 465 U.S. at 120-121, 104 S.Ct. 900. This Court’s power to assert supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is thus curtailed in this context.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims when the Eleventh Amendment bars federal adjudication of those claims.

Dann v. Blackwell · filed 2000-02-03

This Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, however, does not provide jurisdiction otherwise removed by operation of the Eleventh Amendment which states: ... Consequently, this Court holds that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether, as asserted in claims Eight through Ten of the Complaint, Defendants are acting, or are about to act, in violation of the Ohio Constitution.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction to override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Fent v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board · filed 2000-12-18

We note that invocation of supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not affect this conclusion. “[S]upplemental jurisdiction does not render the Eleventh Amendment inapplicable because the Supreme Court has held that ‘neither pendent jurisdiction nor any other basis of jurisdiction may override the Eleventh Amendment.’”

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity from pendent state law claims against a state.

Winokur v. Office of Court Administration · filed 2002-03-14(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) does not constitute a congressional abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment granting district courts the power to adjudicate pendent state law claims.

Section 1367 does not overcome a state defendant’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from a supplemental state law claim.

Panzardi-Santiago v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2002-03-19

Panzardi’s argument that this court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim, does not overcome the fact that UPR is immune from suit by reason of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for state-law tort claims against a state in federal court.

Stagemeyer v. County of Dawson · filed 2002-03-20

The State of Nebraska has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity as to tort claims against it in federal court, and the grant of supplemental jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 cannot override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against a state when the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim.

Walker v. Texas, Office of the Attorney General · filed 2002-08-29

Plaintiff may not use supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to establish jurisdiction over a state law claim that is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to permit supplemental state law claims against nonconsenting states.

Iwachiw v. NYC Board of Elections · filed 2002-08-29(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) does not constitute a congressional abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment granting district courts the power to adjudicate pendent state law claims.

Section 1367’s grant of supplemental jurisdiction does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for state-law claims against state officials.

Poor Bear v. Nesbitt · filed 2004-01-29

Further, the grant of supplemental jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 cannot override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367 does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from supplemental state-law claims in federal court.

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Human Services · filed 2004-03-02

And the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (West 2004), which codified pendent jurisdiction, does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a nonconsenting state defendant protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

Ripley v. University of Texas Health Science Center · filed 2005-05-17(a)

The Supreme Court in Raygor held that “ § 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction does not extend to claims against non-consenting state defendants.” ... This Court follows Pennhurst, Raygor, and Sherwinski and concludes that, whatever the value of hearing all related matters together, this Court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment from hearing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant UTHSC.

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against state officers when the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims.

Acevedo-Orama v. Rodriguez-Rivera · filed 2005-09-12

However, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from asserting supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against state officers. ... This jurisdictional bar applies where, as here, state law claims have been brought into federal court by utilizing the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. ... As such, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to commonwealth law.

Section 1367(a) can confer supplemental jurisdiction over a claim against a state, but it does not waive the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Kyle v. Tremblay et al · filed 2008-11-20(a)

Though § 1367(a), unlike § 1332, can thus confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim against a state as a statutory matter, it does not waive the state’s immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367 does not override the Eleventh Amendment bar to federal court relief against state officials based on state law.

GREEN PARTY OF ARKANSAS v. Daniels · filed 2010-08-20

The Eleventh Amendment bar holds notwithstanding Congress’s post-Pennhurst enactment of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.

Martinez v. Clark County · filed 2012-01-18

Further, the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not “abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.”

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state law claims within a federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Chu v. Mississippi State University · filed 2012-10-03(a)

Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity by granting federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Pettigrew v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety · filed 2013-07-15(a)

The dispute before us arises because supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 does not override the Eleventh Amendment’s bar on suing a state in federal court.

Section 1367(a) does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity for supplemental state law claims against state officials.

Brown v. State · filed 2013-09-30(a)

The jurisdiction of a federal court to entertain supplemental state law claims under 28 U.S.C § 1367 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for state law claims against a nonconsenting state.

Fanelli v. New York · filed 2014-08-18(a)

Indeed, supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) does not constitute a congressional abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment granting district courts the power to adjudicate pendent state law claims, Raygor, 534 U.S. at 540-41,122 S.Ct. 999, and district courts in the Second Circuit have consistently found that the NYSHRL does not include a waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity to suit in federal court.

Section 1367 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity from state-law claims against a state or its officials in their official capacities.

Klaassen v. University of Kansas School of Medicine · filed 2015-02-03

Because supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 does not override the Eleventh Amendment’s bar on suing a state in federal court, the Eleventh Amendment generally bars plaintiffs state law claims against KUMC and the Individual Defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1367 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for supplemental state-law claims against a nonconsenting state defendant.

Cephus v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission · filed 2015-11-19

“The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (West 2004), which codified pendent jurisdiction, does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when it grants supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gorman v. Mississippi · filed 2017-07-11(a)

Furthermore, Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity by granting federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not grant supplemental jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting state defendants.

Moore v. University of Mississippi · filed 2018-03-08(a)

Accordingly, “§ 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction does not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants.”

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a nonconsenting State protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Kamayou v. University of Massachusetts Lowell · filed 2018-08-27(a)

Finding no waiver, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the face of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting state defendants.

Doe v. Coastal Carolina University · filed 2019-01-09

This argument lacks merit because § 1367's grant of jurisdiction "does not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants."

Section 1367 does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a state when the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims, even if the court has federal-question jurisdiction over a related claim.

CAMDEN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION · filed 2019-06-12

Even if, as the Historical Society asserts, New Jersey has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to the NHPA claim, thereby allowing the Court to exercise federal question subject matter jurisdiction over that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it does not follow that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for state-law claims against a state entity.

Doe v. University of Alaska Board of Regents · filed 2019-09-04

Plaintiffs first argue that these claims should not be dismissed because the court has supplemental jurisdiction of these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This argument fails. “Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state law claims over which a federal court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity; supplemental jurisdiction over claims against the state requires its consent to suit in federal court.

Barrett v. Schwab · filed 2019-10-03(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction Congress provided the Court under Section 1367 does not include unmistakably clear language that Congress also intended to abrogate the State’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Section 1367 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for pendent state-law claims against nonconsenting state defendants.

Champion v. Texas Southern University · filed 2020-05-28

The supplemental jurisdiction statute now codified at 28 USC § 1367 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims against state officials in their official capacities when the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit.

A. T. v. MARION COUNTY DEPT. OF CHILD SERVICES · filed 2020-09-21(a)

Because the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against Defendants in their official capacities, the Court lacks original jurisdic- tion and, by definition, cannot have supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against a nonconsenting state when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Curry v. Gonzales · filed 2021-09-27

Plaintiffs argue that regardless of Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NMTCA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as it is “part of the same case or controversy.” ... Not one of these cases involve Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and, thus, they are inapplicable. ... Because Defendants have invoked Eleventh Amendment immunity and Plaintiffs fail to show any waiver of that immunity, the Court finds that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law tort claim should be granted.

Supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

Cromartie v. Correction · filed 2022-09-14

The enactment of §§ 31-51q is no manifestation of any immunity waiver by the state from suit under this stSaetue tPea iwn lofewd evr. aDl ecpo'tu ortf, Enmore rcgaenn csyu pSperlevms. e&n Ptaulb j.u Prrisodt.i, ction vitiate the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity or authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a nonconsenting state.

Springer v. Seventh Judicial District Court · filed 2024-05-31

The Valdez court further rejected the plaintiff’s argument (which Plaintiff also makes here) that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over the complaint’s claims under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act because “‘immunity under the Eleventh Amendment is not abrogated by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, § 1367 does not authorize federal district courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting states.’” Id. (quoting Quarrie v. N.M. Inst. of Mining & Tech., No. 13-cv-0349 MV/SMV, 2014 WL 11456598, at *2 (D.N.M. Feb. 25, 2014) (citing Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 542 (2002))). The Court agrees with this analysis and adopts it.

Section 1367(a) does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for supplemental state-law claims.

Muslim v. Sagamore Children's Psychiatric Center · filed 2024-07-15(a)

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides no exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Foldi v. Board of Education Montgomery County Public Schools · filed 2024-09-17

The Supreme Court, however, has made clear that the Court cannot invoke supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are otherwise barred under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367’s supplemental jurisdiction does not override Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Johnson v. State of Ohio · filed 2025-03-29

But supplemental jurisdiction does not override Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a state that has not consented to suit in federal court.

Brock v. Mental Health and Addiction Services · filed 2025-08-22(a)

And it is well-established that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 must yield to the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1367(a) does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims against a state that has not consented to suit in federal court.

Doe v. University of Colorado, Boulder ex rel. Board of Regents · filed 2017-05-26(a)

This is so even where a federal-law claim might otherwise allow for supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Section 1367 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity or authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting states.

Ramirez v. New Mexico Department of Corrections · filed 2021-04-07(a)

Again, this Court has considered and rejected this argument as “incorrect as a matter of law.” ... As the Quarrie Court explained, “immunity under the Eleventh Amendment is not abrogated by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, § 1367 does not authorize federal district courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting states.” ... Plaintiff has pointed to no contrary authority to suggest that Gonzales has lost the right to invoke eleventh amendment immunity solely because this Court otherwise would have supplemental jurisdiction over her NMTCA claim.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a mandamus claim seeking to compel officials to comply with state law when the Eleventh Amendment bars that relief.

Sheikh v. Jung · filed 2024-09-24(a)

The Supreme Court, however, has held that, under the Eleventh Amendment, a federal court may not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as a basis for enjoining state officials from violating state law. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 120–21 (1984). Accordingly, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sheikh’s mandamus claim.

Section 1367 does not permit state law claims against a state in federal court when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

Fayed v. Davis · filed 2024-01-03

This includes state law claims brought against a ... state in federal court under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims by additional diverse plaintiffs who do not individually meet the amount in controversy requirement when subsection (b) does not exclude those claims.

Garza v. National American Insurance · filed 1992-12-11

However, this court finds that the Congress said what it meant and that the Congress meant what it said — the language of § 1367 unavoidably overrules these pre-§ 1367 cases in those instances where the requirements of § 1367(a) are fulfilled and the exceptions of § 1367(b) are inapplicable.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over related claims included in the original complaint that fall below the diversity amount-in-controversy threshold when another claim independently satisfies diversity jurisdiction.

Patterson Enterprises, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. · filed 1993-01-28(b)

According to the statute, the exclusion set out in § 1367(b) only applies when a party or a claim is added to the action under Rules 14, 19, 20 or 24. In this case, Trucking’s and Enterprises’ claims were present in the original complaint and there was no need to add them under any of the listed rules.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim in a diversity action when doing so would conflict with § 1332’s amount-in-controversy and aggregation requirements.

North American Mechanical Services Corp. v. Hubert · filed 1994-08-03(a)

Section 1367(a) expressly provides that district courts do not have supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when another federal statute expressly provides otherwise. Section 1332 provides otherwise, and § 1367 does not overrule § 1332’s aggregation rules. Therefore, even though Count 1 and Count 2 appear to be part of the same case or controversy, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 2 because § 1332 provides otherwise.

Section 1367 does not require a removed putative class action to be treated as individual claims when calculating the diversity amount in controversy; attorney fees remain prorated across the class.

Karofsky v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 1996-03-15

The "claims in the action” within the meaning of section 1367 are therefore the claims of these plaintiffs as representatives of the class. Thus the caselaw prorating the attorney fees across the class continues to be applicable.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over other class members’ claims only if a named plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy requirement for original diversity jurisdiction.

In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation · filed 1996-08-22(a)

Judge Shadur held that the named plaintiffs must have the requisite dollar amount at issue before § 1367 would affect the court’s jurisdiction over the “pendant claims” of the other class members. ... This Court agrees with the logic employed by Judge Shadur.. Therefore, the question of whether this action satisfies the amount in controversy requirement of § 1332 must be answered by examining Freda’s claims.