U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 85— DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 1367

Supplemental jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in 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. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.(d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.(e) As used in this section, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 310(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5113.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 310(c), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5114, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to civil actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 1, 1990].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34,624 cases (16,630 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005). · cites it 12× “Our decision turns on the correct interpretation of 28 U. S. C. § 1367 . The question has divided the Courts of Appeals, and we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.”
Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Carmen Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 7× “The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in nonetheless declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(4), which permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if,…”
F5 Capital v. Pappas, 856 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2017). · cites it 9× “§ 1332 (d), and supplemental jurisdiction over the non-class, state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). F5 did not contest removal.”
Louise Rosmer, on Behalf of Herself & as Class Rep. v. Pfizer Inc., 263 F.3d 110 (4th Cir. 2001). · cites it 22× “OPINION WILKINSON, Chief Judge: This case turns on one discrete question of statutory interpretation — whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994) permits federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity class action when one named plaintiff has a claim above the…”
Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 5× “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . Plaintiff has not opposed.”
City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997). · cites it 9× “The statute provides, "in 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…”
Wong v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs., 820 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 11× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Here, the district court determined that the appeal from the Commissioner’s decision arose from the “same set of facts” as Wong’s ADA and RA claims.”
Clarence Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 12× “§ 1331 , and supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Enochs contends, however, that the district court abused its discretion in failing to relinquish jurisdiction over the pendent Texas state law claims once it had permitted…”
Kathleen A. Shanaghan v. John D. Cahill Cahill & Assocs., Inc., 58 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 1995). · cites it 13× “The basis for district court discretion in this context lies in the model of supplemental jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction indicates that federal courts generally have discretion to retain or dismiss state law claims when the…”
Artis v. Dist. of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018). · cites it 5× “28 U. S. C. §1367 (a). When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it ordinarily also dismisses all related state claims.”
Fadwa Safar v. Lisa Tingle, 859 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “But it is equally true that no Virginia case stands for the proposition that no such cause of action exists.”
Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533 (2000). · cites it 14× “Respondent also argued that the tolling provision of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1367 , did not apply to toll the limitations period on the state law claims while they were pending in federal court because the Federal District Court never had…”
Show all 34,624 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) — 84 cases
Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003).
AG Funds, L.P. v. Sanofi, 87 F. Supp. 3d 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Albingia Versicherungs A.G., a Foreign Corp. Siemens Components Pte. Ltd., a Foreign Corp. v. Schenker Int'l Inc., a Corp., 344 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2003).
Chamblee v. Harris & Harris, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 2d 670 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc., 101 F.3d 1492 (3rd Cir. 1996).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) — 5 cases
Baker v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 99 F. App'x 718 (6th Cir. 2004).
Hoffman v. Connecticut, 671 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D. Me. 2009).
Deluxe Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. Constructamax, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 601 (D.N.J. 2013).
Miller v. Scari, 674 A.2d 210 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996).
Christopher A Salvador Constr. L L C v. Axis Ins. Co (W.D. La. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3) — 1 case
Peter Farrell Supercars, Inc. v. Monsen, 82 F. App'x 293 (4th Cir. 2003).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) — 448 cases
Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . Plaintiff has not opposed.”
Clarence Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2011). “§ 1331 , and supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Enochs contends, however, that the district court abused its discretion in failing to relinquish jurisdiction over the pendent Texas state law claims once it had permitted…”
Cuevas v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 648 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2011).
Young v. City of Albuquerque, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (D.N.M. 2014).
Archuleta v. City of Roswell, 898 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D.N.M. 2012).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) — 9 cases
TZ Manor, LLC v. Daines, 815 F. Supp. 2d 726 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Molski v. Kahn Winery, 381 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
Freeman v. Clay Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners (D.S.D. 2023).
(PC) Jorgenson v. United States of Am. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
(PC) Ontiveros v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) — 6 cases
Spikes v. Essel Com., L.P. (S.D. Cal. 2020).
Dalfio v. SECVD & I, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2021).
Rosa v. Dhillon (E.D.N.Y 2020).
Nilsen v. Univ. of Washington (W.D. Wash. 2024).
McGreevy (D. Conn. 2026).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) — 112 cases
Rita Lindsey v. Dillard's, Inc., 306 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2002).
Catron v. City of St. Petersburg, 658 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011).
G & G Closed Circuit Events v. Zihao Liu, 45 F.4th 1113 (9th Cir. 2022).
Ricci v. DeStefano, 530 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008).
Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Conn. 2006).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) — 3 cases
Dalfio v. SECVD & I, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2021).
Esquivel v. Downhole Tech. LLC (S.D. Tex. 2022).
McGreevy (D. Conn. 2026).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) — 12 cases
Kim v. Dickinson Wright, PLLC, 442 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2019).
Rice v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., 975 A.2d 193 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009).
Kim Vs. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 2019 NV 20 (Nev. 2019).
Kane v. Mount Pleasant Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025).
King v. The S. Poverty Law Ctr., Inc. (M.D. Ala. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.