Also known as:supplemental jurisdictions · 28 USC 1367 · pendent jurisdiction · ancillary jurisdiction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine granting federal district courts authority to hear additional claims that lack an independent basis for original jurisdiction when those claims form part of the same constitutional case or controversy as a claim already within the court's original jurisdiction. The additional claims must share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim so that a plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try them together in one proceeding. Exercise of the authority remains discretionary and subject to statutory limitations in diversity cases.
Sources & Authorities· 10 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Joined Plaintiffs Below Amount Threshold
Sabrina Shah, a citizen of State A, sued Skyline Construction in federal court on a diversity claim seeking $120,000 for breach of a construction contract. Stephen Shaw, also a citizen of State A, joined as a co-plaintiff asserting a related breach claim arising from the same project but seeking only $35,000. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Shaw's claim because Shah's claim satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement and both claims arose from the identical construction dispute.
State Claims Added to Federal Question Suit
Sofia Stern filed a federal copyright infringement action against Sterling Manufacturing alleging unauthorized use of her software code. She also asserted state-law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract arising from the identical episode of code copying and distribution. The district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims because they shared the same operative facts as the federal copyright claim.
Pendent State Tort Claims With Federal Claim
Scott Summers sued Sapphire Technologies in federal court under a federal anti-discrimination statute for workplace harassment. He added state-law claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the same pattern of supervisor misconduct. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims because they derived from the common nucleus of operative fact presented by the federal claim.
Plaintiff Claim Against Impleaded Party Barred
Solomon Silver, a citizen of State A, sued Starlight Media, a citizen of State B, in diversity for $90,000. Starlight impleaded Steven Silva, also a citizen of State B, on a contribution claim. Silver then asserted a direct state-law claim against Silva for the same underlying events. The court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over Silver's claim against Silva because exercising it would violate the complete-diversity requirement of section 1332.
Admiralty Claim With Related State Claim
Sabrina Shah, owner of a vessel, sued a terminal operator in federal court under admiralty jurisdiction for cargo damage occurring during unloading. She added a state-law negligence claim against the same defendant arising from the identical unloading operation. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because it formed part of the same case or controversy as the admiralty claim.
Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.358 U.S. 354, 382-383, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959)
Bankruptcy Core Proceeding With State Claim
Stephen Shaw, a bankruptcy debtor, brought a core proceeding in federal bankruptcy court against a creditor for turnover of property. He added a related state-law contract claim against the same creditor arising from the identical pre-petition transaction. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because it shared the common nucleus of operative fact with the core bankruptcy proceeding.
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1982)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When does a federal court have power to hear a state-law claim that lacks an independent jurisdictional basis?+
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim that supplies original jurisdiction, so that the plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try both claims in one proceeding.
Does supplemental jurisdiction allow a second plaintiff in a diversity case to join when that plaintiff's claim falls below the amount-in-controversy threshold?+
Yes, provided at least one plaintiff's claim satisfies the amount requirement and complete diversity exists, section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over the additional plaintiff's related claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact.
What statutory restriction limits supplemental jurisdiction in diversity-only cases?+
Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24, or by persons proposed for joinder or intervention as plaintiffs, when exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the requirements of section 1332.
May a court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when the constitutional test is satisfied?+
Yes, under section 1367(c) a court may decline when the state claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, substantially predominates over the anchor claim, or when the anchor claim has been dismissed, among other grounds.
has furthered single trials of related cases. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, supra . Moreover, we have recognized the
jurisdiction
of three-judge courts to hear statutory claims
pendent
…
in the lower federal courts, which should quite obviously be carried forward into our interpretation of ambiguous statutes relating to the exercise of that
jurisdiction
. We should assume,…
ancillary jurisdiction
, and as shall be prescribed by rules or orders of the courts of bankruptcy of their respective districts, except as herein otherwise provided." The bankruptcy judge possessed "complete…
jurisdiction
under the Jones Act. Of course the considerations which call for the exercise of
pendent jurisdiction
of a state claim related to a pending federal cause of action within the appropriate scope of the doctrine of Hurn v. Oursler , 289 U. S. 238, are not the same when, as here, what is…
Civil ProcedureJurisdiction and venue · Federal subject-matter jurisdictionNEXTGENFoundational