Supplemental jurisdiction
Encyclopedia
Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction
to hear the additional claims independently. is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction
(Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
) and pendent jurisdiction
(United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
) and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction
(Finley v. United States).
By default, courts have supplemental jurisdiction over "all other claims that are so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy" (§ 1367(a)). The true test being that the new claim "arises from the same set of operative facts." This means a federal court hearing a federal claim can also hear substantially related state law claims, thereby encouraging efficiency by only having one trial at the federal level rather than one trial in federal court and another in state court. However, if the case is brought as a diversity
action (i.e., each defendant comes from a state different than each plaintiff), there generally is no supplemental jurisdiction if such claims would destroy complete diversity. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
Courts are also free to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in specified or exceptional circumstances (§ 1367(c)).
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases....
to hear the additional claims independently. is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction
Ancillary jurisdiction
Ancillary jurisdiction allows a United States federal court to hear certain claims sufficiently related to the original claim that would otherwise defeat the court's jurisdiction...
(Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, , is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the civil procedure subject of ancillary jurisdiction.- Facts :...
) and pendent jurisdiction
Pendent jurisdiction
Pendent jurisdiction is the authority of a United States federal court to hear a closely related state law claim against a party already facing a federal claim, described by the Supreme Court as "jurisdiction over nonfederal claims between parties litigating other matters properly before the...
(United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus...
) and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction
Pendent party jurisdiction
In the United States federal courts, pendent party jurisdiction refers to a court's power to adjudicate a claim against a party whom would otherwise not be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, because the claim arose from a common nucleus of operative fact.One well-known example of...
(Finley v. United States).
By default, courts have supplemental jurisdiction over "all other claims that are so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy" (§ 1367(a)). The true test being that the new claim "arises from the same set of operative facts." This means a federal court hearing a federal claim can also hear substantially related state law claims, thereby encouraging efficiency by only having one trial at the federal level rather than one trial in federal court and another in state court. However, if the case is brought as a diversity
Diversity jurisdiction
In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court has the power to hear a civil case where the persons that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are...
action (i.e., each defendant comes from a state different than each plaintiff), there generally is no supplemental jurisdiction if such claims would destroy complete diversity. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 USCA §1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of §1332, provided that at...
Courts are also free to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in specified or exceptional circumstances (§ 1367(c)).