Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

When Federal Court Has Neither Diversity Nor Federal Question Jurisdiction Exists, § 1367 Does Not Confer Discretion to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over State Law Claims

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v. Schieffer, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26936 (8th Cir. May 30, 2012):

As there is neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction over Schieffer's contract-based claim for attorneys' fees and expenses, federal jurisdiction must be based upon the district court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But courts have uniformly held that, when original federal jurisdiction is wholly lacking (as here), this statute confers no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. See Toste Farm Corp. v. Hadbury, Inc., 70 F.3d 640, 646 n.11 (1st Cir. 1995) ("Supplemental jurisdiction . . . cannot survive the jurisdictional failure of the original claim."); Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th Cir. 1996) ("If the court dismisses plaintiff's federal claims [for lack of subject matter jurisdiction], then supplemental jurisdiction can never exist.") (emphasis in original); Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 962 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). "The court must have jurisdiction over a case or controversy before it may assert jurisdiction over ancillary claims." Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 355 (1996); see also United States v. Afremov, 611 F.3d 970, 976 (8th Cir. 2010).

Share this article:


Recent Posts