Also known as: nucleus of operative facts · nuclei of operative fact · nuclei of operative facts · common nucleus of operative fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common set of facts from which federal and state claims arise. The shared facts must be such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try the claims together in one proceeding.
Nancy Nelson sued a defendant in federal court on a diversity claim exceeding $75,000. She joined a second plaintiff whose related state claim fell below the amount threshold. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction because the claims arose from the same underlying events.
Nexus Financial sued a rival in federal court alleging violations of a federal statute. It added state-law interference and unfair-competition claims arising from the same course of conduct. The court could hear the state claims because they derived from the identical factual events.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nora Nash challenged two distinct state regulations in one action. Both provisions were enacted together, administered by the same officials, and rested on the same sequence of regulatory events. The claims therefore formed part of a single constitutional case.
Nicholas Nunez was tried for robbing several victims during a single incident. The prosecution relied on the same witnesses and proof for each count. The offenses therefore arose from one nucleus of operative fact.
The federal and state claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact so that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them together in one proceeding.
No. The test is fact-based. Claims may have different elements yet still share a common nucleus when they arise from the same underlying events.
Yes when both claims rest on the same alleged misappropriation of protected material and the same evidence will be central to each.
No. The same standard governs supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases when additional plaintiffs' claims do not independently meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
…"[T]here is power in federal courts to hear the whole," the Court said, when the state and federal claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" and are so linked that the plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding." Id. , at 725. Gibbs involved the linkage of federal and state claims…