Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, when may a federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims?

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, when may a federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims?

• A. When the federal court has original jurisdiction over the case.
• B. Only when all claims are federal question claims.
• C. Only when there is diversity jurisdiction.
• D. Never; state-law claims are always dismissed.

Answer: (A)

Supplemental jurisdiction under §1367 lets a federal court hear state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim. The essential trigger is that the court already has original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action. Once there’s that federal anchor, the court may include related state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim. This keeps related issues together instead of forcing separate suits and promotes efficiency. If there’s no federal-jurisdiction claim at all, §1367 cannot be used to reach the state-law claims. The court, however, may later decline to exercise that jurisdiction under §1367(c) for reasons like novel or complex state-law issues or when the state-law claims predominate.

Supplemental jurisdiction under §1367 lets a federal court hear state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim. The essential trigger is that the court already has original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action. Once there’s that federal anchor, the court may include related state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim. This keeps related issues together instead of forcing separate suits and promotes efficiency. If there’s no federal-jurisdiction claim at all, §1367 cannot be used to reach the state-law claims. The court, however, may later decline to exercise that jurisdiction under §1367(c) for reasons like novel or complex state-law issues or when the state-law claims predominate.