28 U.S.C. § 1367

Definition

28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a statute that governs supplemental jurisdiction in federal courts, allowing them to hear additional claims that are related to a primary claim over which the court has original jurisdiction. This statute enables federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims if they arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the federal claim, promoting judicial efficiency by resolving related issues in one proceeding.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 was enacted as part of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 to clarify and expand the scope of supplemental jurisdiction.
2. This statute allows federal courts to hear state law claims if they are so closely related to the federal claim that they form part of the same case or controversy.
3. Under § 1367, federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances, such as when the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims.
4. Supplemental jurisdiction applies not only to additional claims brought by plaintiffs but also permits defendants to raise counterclaims that are related to the original federal claim.
5. The statute explicitly states that it does not confer jurisdiction over claims that would not otherwise fall within the original jurisdiction of federal courts.

Review Questions

• How does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 enhance the efficiency of federal court proceedings?
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1367 enhances the efficiency of federal court proceedings by allowing courts to hear related state law claims alongside federal claims. This eliminates the need for separate state court actions, thus saving time and resources for both the judiciary and the parties involved. By resolving all related issues in one forum, the statute minimizes inconsistencies and promotes comprehensive adjudication of disputes.
• What are some scenarios where a federal court might decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367?
  • A federal court might decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 when state law claims substantially predominate over federal claims, leading to complicated legal questions that could confuse juries. Additionally, if there are compelling reasons such as jury confusion or if the state law claims raise complex issues of state law, the court may choose to dismiss those claims without prejudice, allowing parties to pursue them in state court instead.
• Evaluate how 28 U.S.C. § 1367 interacts with principles of diversity jurisdiction and its implications for litigants in federal court.
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1367 interacts with principles of diversity jurisdiction by allowing litigants in cases where diversity jurisdiction is established to also bring related state law claims into federal court. This integration can significantly benefit plaintiffs who want a single forum for their disputes and can lead to more strategic legal decisions. However, it also requires careful consideration by defendants regarding potential risks associated with litigating broader claims in a federal setting, as it may expose them to state law liabilities they would otherwise avoid in purely federal cases.

Related terms

Original Jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, which is the power to review decisions made by lower courts.

Diversity Jurisdiction:

A form of subject matter jurisdiction allowing federal courts to hear cases where the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds a specified threshold.

Joinder: The inclusion of additional parties or claims in a legal action, which can occur under rules governing supplemental jurisdiction when claims are related.