32:
474:
to hear non-federal claims sufficiently logically dependent on a federal "anchor claim" (i.e., a federal claim serving as the basis for supplemental jurisdiction), despite that such courts would otherwise lack jurisdiction over such claims. Ancillary jurisdiction differs from pendent jurisdiction in
385:
By default, courts have supplemental jurisdiction over "all other claims that are so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy." 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
446:
has been read to require that (1) there must be a federal claim (whether from the
Constitution, federal statute, or treaty) and (2) the non-federal claim arises "from a common nucleus of operative fact" such that a plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding."
409:
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 court." Such jurisdiction is granted to encourage both
462:, its supplemental jurisdiction statute. However, Subsection §1367(c)(3) expressly authorizes the district court to dismiss a supplemental claim when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.
386:
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
390:
action (i.e., the basis for federal jurisdiction is that each defendant comes from a state different from each plaintiff), there generally is no supplemental jurisdiction if such claims would destroy complete diversity. See
421:
by contrast is the court's authority to adjudicate claims against a party not otherwise under the court's jurisdiction because the claim arises from the same nucleus of facts as another claim properly before the court.
369:, that distinction is no longer meaningful. Supplemental jurisdiction refers to the various ways a federal court may hear either: state law claims, claims from parties who lack the amount in controversy requirement of
481:) not to be logically interdependent. Like pendent jurisdiction, a federal court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction if the anchor claim has original federal jurisdiction either through
520:
claims are a paradigmatic example of ancillary jurisdiction, given the tendency of such claims to arise under state contract law, but be entirely dependent on the original claim.
265:
414:", and fairness by eliminating the need for a separate federal and state trial hearing essentially the same facts yet potentially reaching opposite conclusions.
611:
588:
432:
352:
333:
316:
258:
630:
393:
251:
528:
311:
583:
477:
427:
328:
218:
475:
that pendent jurisdiction requires the federal and non-federal claims to arise from a "common nucleus of operative fact," (per
417:
Pendent jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to adjudicate claims it could not otherwise hear. The related concept of
39:
17:
397:
Courts are also free to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in specified or exceptional circumstances (§ 1367(c)).
237:
96:
455:
365:
Historically there was a distinction between pendent jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction. But, under the ruling in
298:
141:
497:
549:
190:
482:
116:
293:
to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the
471:
406:
306:
294:
290:
228:
107:
418:
344:
176:
86:
373:, when defendants are joined in claims, or when multiple plaintiffs are joined in claims, like in
486:
387:
370:
121:
687:
615:
592:
436:
356:
337:
320:
152:
126:
136:
31:
8:
223:
213:
208:
169:
618:
595:
536:
535:
Ancillary jurisdiction has been replaced entirely by supplemental jurisdiction, per 28
513:
439:
359:
340:
323:
81:
672:
411:
61:
645:
571:
459:
302:
43:
454:
has been essentially codified by
Congress along with ancillary jurisdiction in
66:
51:
681:
200:
470:
Ancillary jurisdiction is a form of supplemental jurisdiction that allows a
509:
493:
374:
501:
162:
517:
505:
76:
71:
539:§ 1367(b), part of the U.S. supplemental jurisdiction statute.
492:
Areas where ancillary jurisdiction can be asserted include
343: (1966)) and a superseding of the Court's treatment of
532:
are seminal cases relating to ancillary jurisdiction.
646:"28 U.S. Code § 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction"
679:
572:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1367
394:Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
297:to hear the additional claims independently.
259:
425:The leading case on pendent jurisdiction is
673:28 U.S.C § 1367 - Supplemental Jurisdiction
529:Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
405:Pendent jurisdiction is the authority of a
312:Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
266:
252:
465:
584:United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
478:United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
428:United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
400:
329:United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
326: (1978)) and pendent jurisdiction (
14:
680:
632:Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity
309:'s rulings on ancillary jurisdiction (
238:Adequate and independent state ground
24:
25:
699:
666:
650:LII / Legal Information Institute
524:Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange
143:Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
30:
550:Szendrey-Ramos v. First Bancorp
638:
634:, 366 F.3d 569 (7th Cir.2004.)
624:
601:
576:
564:
13:
1:
557:
483:federal-question jurisdiction
380:
291:United States federal courts
7:
542:
472:United States federal court
407:United States federal court
295:subject-matter jurisdiction
10:
704:
419:pendent party jurisdiction
345:pendent party jurisdiction
281:, also sometimes known as
512:(Fed. R. Civ. P. 22) and
305:is a codification of the
279:Supplemental jurisdiction
87:Constitutional avoidance
608:Finley v. United States
516:(Fed. R. Civ. P. 24).
349:Finley v. United States
508:(Fed. R. Civ. P. 14),
504:(Fed. R. Civ. P. 13),
487:diversity jurisdiction
466:Ancillary jurisdiction
371:diversity jurisdiction
289:, is the authority of
283:ancillary jurisdiction
18:Ancillary jurisdiction
570:28 U.S. Code § 1367.
412:economy in litigation
127:Amount in controversy
40:United States federal
401:Pendent jurisdiction
287:pendent jurisdiction
214:Anti-Injunction Act
82:Political questions
219:Sovereign immunity
276:
275:
185:
184:
62:Advisory opinions
16:(Redirected from
695:
660:
659:
657:
656:
642:
636:
628:
622:
605:
599:
580:
574:
568:
268:
261:
254:
144:
117:Federal question
104:
103:
34:
27:
26:
21:
703:
702:
698:
697:
696:
694:
693:
692:
678:
677:
669:
664:
663:
654:
652:
644:
643:
639:
629:
625:
606:
602:
581:
577:
569:
565:
560:
545:
498:Fed. R. Civ. P.
468:
450:The holding in
403:
383:
272:
243:
240:
142:
91:
44:civil procedure
42:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
701:
691:
690:
676:
675:
668:
667:External links
665:
662:
661:
637:
623:
600:
575:
562:
561:
559:
556:
555:
554:
544:
541:
467:
464:
456:28 U.S.C.
442: (1966).
402:
399:
382:
379:
362: (1989)).
299:28 U.S.C.
274:
273:
271:
270:
263:
256:
248:
245:
244:
242:
241:
236:
234:
230:Rooker–Feldman
226:
221:
216:
211:
206:
197:
194:
193:
187:
186:
183:
182:
181:
180:
173:
166:
156:
155:
149:
148:
147:
146:
139:
134:
129:
124:
119:
111:
110:
108:Subject-matter
100:
99:
93:
92:
90:
89:
84:
79:
74:
69:
64:
58:
55:
54:
52:Justiciability
48:
47:
36:
35:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
700:
689:
686:
685:
683:
674:
671:
670:
651:
647:
641:
635:
633:
627:
620:
617:
613:
609:
604:
598: (1966).
597:
594:
590:
586:
585:
579:
573:
567:
563:
553:(D.P.R. 2007)
552:
551:
547:
546:
540:
538:
533:
531:
530:
525:
521:
519:
515:
514:interventions
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:counterclaims
490:
488:
484:
480:
479:
473:
463:
461:
457:
453:
448:
445:
441:
438:
434:
430:
429:
423:
420:
415:
413:
408:
398:
396:
395:
389:
378:
376:
372:
368:
363:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
335:
331:
330:
325:
322:
318:
314:
313:
308:
307:Supreme Court
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
269:
264:
262:
257:
255:
250:
249:
247:
246:
239:
235:
233:
231:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
203:
199:
198:
196:
195:
192:
189:
188:
179:
178:
174:
172:
171:
167:
165:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
154:
151:
150:
145:
140:
138:
135:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:
120:
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:
101:
98:
95:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
63:
60:
59:
57:
56:
53:
50:
49:
45:
41:
38:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
688:Jurisdiction
653:. Retrieved
649:
640:
631:
626:
621: (1989).
607:
603:
582:
578:
566:
548:
534:
527:
523:
522:
510:interpleader
502:cross-claims
491:
476:
469:
451:
449:
443:
426:
424:
416:
404:
392:
384:
375:class action
366:
364:
348:
327:
310:
286:
282:
278:
277:
229:
201:
177:Quasi in rem
175:
168:
161:
132:Supplemental
131:
97:Jurisdiction
460:§ 1367
303:§ 1367
163:In personam
655:2021-06-08
558:References
381:Definition
224:Abrogation
209:Abstention
191:Federalism
518:Impleader
506:impleader
388:diversity
122:Diversity
46:doctrines
682:Category
543:Case law
232:doctrine
204:doctrine
153:Personal
77:Mootness
72:Ripeness
67:Standing
377:suits.
137:Removal
587:,
537:U.S.C.
458:
301:
170:In rem
614:
591:
500:13),
452:Gibbs
444:Gibbs
435:
367:Exxon
355:
336:
319:
616:U.S.
593:U.S.
526:and
437:U.S.
357:U.S.
338:U.S.
321:U.S.
202:Erie
619:545
612:490
596:715
589:383
485:or
440:715
433:383
360:545
353:490
341:715
334:383
324:365
317:437
285:or
684::
648:.
610:,
489:.
431:,
351:,
332:,
315:,
658:.
496:(
410:"
347:(
267:e
260:t
253:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
