Which statement best describes 28 U.S.C. § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction?

Which statement best describes 28 U.S.C. § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction?

• A. It Limits Federal Jurisdiction To Federal Claims Only.
• B. It Allows District Courts To Hear Related State-Law Claims That Form Part Of The Same Case Or Controversy When There Is Proper Federal Jurisdiction Over A Claim.
• C. It Allows Removal Of State-Law Claims Into Federal Court Regardless Of Jurisdiction.
• D. It Requires State Courts To Abstain From Hearing Related Claims.

Answer: (B)

Supplemental jurisdiction lets a federal court that has original jurisdiction over a claim also hear closely related state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy. When there is proper federal jurisdiction over at least one claim, the court may include other state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact, so the entire dispute can be resolved in one action. This is why the statement describing the provision as allowing district courts to hear related state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy when there is proper federal jurisdiction over a claim is the best fit. The other options misstate the idea: the statute does not limit federal jurisdiction to federal claims, it does not authorize removal of state-law claims regardless of jurisdiction, and it does not require state courts to abstain from hearing related claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction lets a federal court that has original jurisdiction over a claim also hear closely related state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy. When there is proper federal jurisdiction over at least one claim, the court may include other state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact, so the entire dispute can be resolved in one action. This is why the statement describing the provision as allowing district courts to hear related state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy when there is proper federal jurisdiction over a claim is the best fit. The other options misstate the idea: the statute does not limit federal jurisdiction to federal claims, it does not authorize removal of state-law claims regardless of jurisdiction, and it does not require state courts to abstain from hearing related claims.