28 U.S.C. § 1368
Counterclaims in unfair practices in international trade.
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action based on a counterclaim raised pursuant to section 337(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to the extent that it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim in the proceeding under section 337(a) of that Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 909 F.3d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 909 F.3d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “"); see 28 U.S.C. § 1368 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action based on a counterclaim raised pursuant to section 337(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to the extent that it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter…”
United States Ex Rel. Anthony v. Burke Eng'g Co., 356 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2005). “§ 1330 (c) (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (West Supp.2004); 28 U.S.”
Lopez v. Webster Cent. Sch. Dist., 682 F. Supp. 2d 274 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). “Supplemental Jurisdiction When the Federal claims in a complaint have been dismissed, and only State claims remain, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (1990). Such is the situation here.”
Minnesota Ex Rel. Hatch v. Worldcom, Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Minnesota 2000). “28 U.S.C. § 1368 . Although Worldcom has filed an Answer to the State's Complaint, it has not asserted any counterclaims.”
Converse, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 907 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “"); see 28 U.S.C. § 1368 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action based on a counterclaim raised pursuant to section 337(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to the extent that it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter…”
New Mexico Top Organics - Ultra Health, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Mexico (D.N.M. 2024). “Thus, although the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under specified circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (c), I recommend that the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining claims in this case.”
Hudson v. Simon (S.D. Cal. 2024). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (c)(3). 23 24 6 Even if Hudson were suing San Diego County, as currently pleaded, Hudson would still fail to state a claim.”
Wright v. Ocwen Loan Servicing (E.D. Mich. 2019). “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1368 (c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and dismisses them.”
Rodriguez v. City of Knoxville, Tennessee (TWP2) (E.D. Tenn. 2021). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (c)(3). “When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed.”
Giles v. San Joaquin Valley Rehab. Hosp. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (c) (the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when 11 “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); McKinney v.”
Chaudhuri v. Green, 689 F. Supp. 2d 438 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). “Supplemental Jurisdiction When the Federal claims in a complaint have been dismissed, and only State claims remain, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (1990). Such is the situation here.”
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.