Supplemental Jurisdiction
What is the Supplemental Jurisdiction?
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1367, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over additional claims that lack independent federal jurisdiction if they are so related to the anchor claim that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.
Source: United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)
Definition
Supplemental jurisdiction, codified at 28 U.S.C. section 1367, allows federal courts to hear claims that do not independently satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction requirements when those claims are so related to claims within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. This doctrine, which codified and expanded upon the earlier concepts of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction, prevents the inefficiency and potential inconsistency of requiring related claims to be litigated in separate courts.
Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction broadly over all claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the jurisdictionally sufficient anchor claim. However, section 1367(b) contains important limitations in diversity cases: the court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 or seeking to intervene under Rule 24, if exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the requirements of section 1332 (the diversity statute).
Section 1367(c) provides discretionary grounds for declining supplemental jurisdiction, including when the state-law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, the state claim substantially predominates over the federal claims, the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or other exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons for declining. Courts commonly decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims are dismissed early in the litigation.
Key Elements
- 1An anchor claim must independently satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction
- 2The supplemental claim must share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim
- 3In diversity cases, section 1367(b) limits supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24
- 4Courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c) for specified discretionary reasons
- 5The supplemental claim must form part of the same constitutional case or controversy
Landmark Cases
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
383 U.S. 715 (1966)
Established the common nucleus of operative fact test for pendent jurisdiction, the precursor to supplemental jurisdiction codified in section 1367.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
545 U.S. 546 (2005)
Held that section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs in a diversity case who do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as at least one plaintiff satisfies it.
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
437 U.S. 365 (1978)
Pre-section 1367 case holding that a plaintiff could not use ancillary jurisdiction to assert a claim against a nondiverse third-party defendant, reflecting the policy later codified in section 1367(b).
City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons
522 U.S. 156 (1997)
Broadly interpreted section 1367(a) to permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims for judicial review of administrative action when joined with federal claims.
Exam Tips
- Draw a diagram of all claims and parties, then check each claim for independent jurisdiction. Only claims lacking independent jurisdiction need supplemental jurisdiction analysis.
- Section 1367(b) restrictions apply only in diversity cases and only to claims by plaintiffs (not defendants). This asymmetry is frequently tested.
- When all federal claims are dismissed early, expect courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c)(3).
- After Allapattah, remember that one plaintiff meeting the amount-in-controversy requirement can carry additional plaintiffs under supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Applying section 1367(b) restrictions in federal question cases; the subsection only limits supplemental jurisdiction in diversity-only cases.
- Forgetting that supplemental jurisdiction requires an anchor claim with independent federal jurisdiction; you cannot bootstrap all claims on supplemental jurisdiction alone.
- Overlooking the court's discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c), especially after dismissal of all federal claims.
Memory Aid
1367: (a) grants broadly (common nucleus), (b) restricts plaintiffs in diversity, (c) gives discretion to decline.