Supplemental Jurisdiction under ederal Courts
Supplemental Jurisdiction under Federal Courts
I. What is Supplemental Jurisdiction?
Supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine that allows federal courts to hear additional claims closely related to a claim over which the court has original jurisdiction, even if the court would not have independent jurisdiction over those additional claims.
This means, once a federal court has jurisdiction over a primary claim (usually through federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction), it can hear related state law or other claims that form part of the same case or controversy.
Statutory Basis
Supplemental jurisdiction is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Before this statute, the concept was known as “pendent jurisdiction” (for state law claims related to federal claims) and “ancillary jurisdiction” (for claims related by parties or facts).
Section 1367 consolidates these into one provision allowing courts discretion to exercise jurisdiction over all claims that are part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Key Elements of Supplemental Jurisdiction:
Claims must be part of the “same case or controversy” as the claim with original jurisdiction.
The court may decline jurisdiction under §1367(c) for reasons such as:
The claim raises novel or complex state issues,
The state claim substantially predominates,
The court has dismissed the claim over which it had original jurisdiction,
Other exceptional circumstances.
II. Key Cases on Supplemental Jurisdiction
1. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)
Facts:
Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit under a federal labor statute (Labor Management Relations Act).
Plaintiff also included related state law claims for tortious conduct.
The defendant argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over state law claims.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that federal courts could exercise jurisdiction over state law claims if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim.
It established the “same case or controversy” test under Article III.
The state claims must be closely related to federal claims so that the plaintiff would normally be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.
Importance:
This case laid the foundation for modern supplemental jurisdiction.
It emphasized judicial economy, convenience, and fairness as guiding principles.
2. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978)
Facts:
Plaintiff sued in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The plaintiff joined a third-party defendant who was not diverse.
The question was whether the federal court could exercise jurisdiction over the non-diverse third-party defendant.
Holding:
The Court held that supplemental jurisdiction could not override the complete diversity requirement of diversity jurisdiction.
Claims against non-diverse parties could not be heard just because they arose from the same transaction.
Importance:
The ruling limits supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases to maintain constitutional requirements.
It clarifies that supplemental jurisdiction does not create diversity jurisdiction where it does not exist.
3. Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989)
Facts:
Plaintiff filed a federal claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Plaintiff also tried to bring claims against non-federal parties related to the same facts.
The Court considered whether federal courts had jurisdiction over related claims against parties lacking independent jurisdictional grounds.
Holding:
The Court held that federal courts did not have jurisdiction over the related claims without explicit statutory authorization.
The decision led to Congress enacting 28 U.S.C. §1367 to clarify supplemental jurisdiction.
Importance:
This case demonstrated the need for statutory authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
It led directly to the enactment of §1367, the modern statute governing supplemental jurisdiction.
4. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 Enactment (1990)
In response to Finley, Congress enacted Section 1367 to provide federal courts with broad authority to hear supplemental claims.
Section 1367 codifies and expands the principles of supplemental jurisdiction.
It gives courts discretion to decline jurisdiction under certain conditions.
5. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005)
Facts:
Plaintiffs brought claims against Exxon in federal court.
Some plaintiffs met the complete diversity requirement; others did not.
The question was whether federal courts could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of plaintiffs lacking complete diversity.
Holding:
The Court held that under §1367, federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs who do not meet diversity requirements, as long as at least one plaintiff has complete diversity and meets the amount-in-controversy requirement.
This extended supplemental jurisdiction to multiple plaintiffs in a class or group situation.
Importance:
It clarified the scope of supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases.
It allows federal courts to hear additional claims even if some parties do not satisfy diversity, provided at least one party does.
6. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996)
Facts:
Plaintiff sued Caterpillar in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The original defendant was not diverse.
After removal, the non-diverse defendant was dismissed.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal court retains jurisdiction even if diversity is lost due to dismissal of a non-diverse party after removal.
Supplemental jurisdiction allows the court to maintain jurisdiction over remaining parties.
Importance:
Reinforces the principle that supplemental jurisdiction is flexible.
Ensures that federal courts can continue with remaining claims after parties are dropped.
III. Summary of Supplemental Jurisdiction Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Origin | Derived from “pendent” and “ancillary” jurisdiction |
| Statutory Basis | Codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 |
| Test for Supplemental Jurisdiction | Claims must be part of the same case or controversy |
| Limitations | Cannot override constitutional requirements (e.g., complete diversity) |
| Discretion of Courts | Courts can decline jurisdiction under §1367(c) for fairness or efficiency |
| Applies to Claims | Federal and state claims closely related |
IV. Conclusion
Supplemental jurisdiction is an essential doctrine in federal civil procedure that allows courts to hear multiple claims in one lawsuit, promoting judicial economy and fairness. The key cases above provide the legal framework that governs when and how federal courts exercise this jurisdiction, balancing the need for efficient resolution with constitutional limits.
RELATED Blog
0 comments