Also known as: 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · supplemental jurisdiction · § 1367 · 28 USC 1367 · supplemental jurisdiction act
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal statute authorizing district courts to exercise jurisdiction over all claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III when the court already possesses original jurisdiction over one claim in the action. The statute extends to claims involving joinder or intervention of additional parties. Limitations apply in diversity cases to preserve complete diversity requirements and courts retain discretion to decline jurisdiction in specified circumstances.
Scott Summers sued a diverse defendant in federal court on a contract claim exceeding the jurisdictional amount. He joined an additional plaintiff whose separate but factually related claim fell short of the amount requirement. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the second claim because it shared a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim and complete diversity remained intact.
Samuel Soto asserted a federal copyright claim against one defendant. He added state-law unfair competition claims against two additional parties arising from the same copying and commercial use of his materials. The district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction because the state claims formed part of the same constitutional case or controversy as the federal claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Skylar Sullivan brought a federal securities claim against a corporation. She included a state-law breach of fiduciary duty claim arising from the identical corporate transaction and disclosures. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction after determining the claims derived from a common nucleus of operative fact that a plaintiff would ordinarily try together.
Sylvia Santos sued a diverse defendant for breach of contract. The defendant impleaded a non-diverse third party on a contribution claim. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's direct claim against the impleaded party because exercising jurisdiction would destroy complete diversity.
A plaintiff filed a federal-question claim and several related state-law claims. After the federal claim was dismissed early, the district court declined to retain the state claims because they raised novel issues of state law and substantially predominated over the original federal claim.
The statute permits supplemental jurisdiction when at least one plaintiff's claim satisfies the amount in controversy and complete diversity exists. Additional claims by joined plaintiffs that share a common nucleus of operative fact may proceed even if they fall below the jurisdictional amount.
Supporting sources
Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 when exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the requirements of section 1332.
Supporting sources
A court may decline when a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, when state claims substantially predominate, when the anchor claim has been dismissed, or when other compelling reasons exist.
Supporting sources
Yes. Section 1367(a) expressly includes claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties when those claims form part of the same case or controversy as the anchor claim.
Supporting sources
…the joinder of plaintiffs who fail to meet the amount in controversy, the overall statutory scheme and the history of the supplemental jurisdiction statute demonstrate that Congress did not intend to overrule Zahn v. International Paper Co. in the manner the Court suggests. The legislative history reveals that Congress was primarily…