Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)Civil ProcedureMedium
A plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging violations of a federal environmental statute. The plaintiff also included a state-law claim for nuisance arising from the same set of facts. The federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal environmental claim. What is the most appropriate basis for the federal court to hear the state-law nuisance claim?
- ARemoval jurisdiction, if the state-law claim could have been filed in federal court initially.
- BDiversity of citizenship, if the parties are from different states.
- CSupplemental jurisdiction, as the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.
- DFederal question jurisdiction, as it is related to a federal claim.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Supplemental jurisdiction, as the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.
Supplemental jurisdiction (formerly 'pendent' and 'ancillary' jurisdiction) allows federal courts to hear state-law claims that are so related to federal claims in the action that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a case from state to federal court, but it's not a basis for a federal court to hear a state-law claim that was *initially* filed in federal court alongside a federal claim.
- B. Diversity of citizenship is a separate basis for jurisdiction and is not necessarily present or required when supplemental jurisdiction is invoked for a state-law claim alongside a federal question claim.
- D. Federal question jurisdiction only applies if the state-law claim itself arises under federal law, which a nuisance claim does not.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Federal courts can hear state-law claims and claims involving additional parties over which the court would not otherwise have subject matter jurisdiction, provided they form part of the same case or controversy as claims over which the court does have original jurisdiction.
- Codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
- Requires state and federal claims to derive from a 'common nucleus of operative fact'.
- Courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances.
Memory trick: Federal courts 'Supplement' their power with related claims.