28 USC Section 1367: Using Supplemental Federal Jurisdiction to Preserve or Defeat Claims

A live 90-minute CLE webinar with interactive Q&A

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

1:00pm-2:30pm EST, 10:00am-11:30am PST

Early Registration Discount Deadline, Friday, October 25, 2019

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE webinar will educate trial lawyers regarding the intricacies of supplemental federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367. This doctrine--the statutory successor to pendant and ancillary jurisdiction--can either simplify disputes by allowing nonfederal claims to proceed in federal court or require parties to pursue concurrent or successive actions.


Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367 permits federal judges to exercise discretion and allow parties to pursue claims in federal court even when there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. Plaintiffs can use the breadth of supplemental jurisdiction to force defendants to fight a full-scale war, not just a specific and limited federal battle. Defendants can use the limits of supplemental jurisdiction to force plaintiffs to invest in a multi-front campaign.

Supplemental jurisdiction controversies can present themselves both early and late during litigation. At a case's outset, when a plaintiff pleads a federal claim, the plaintiff can ask the court to exercise jurisdiction over nonfederal claims. The district court "shall have supplemental jurisdiction" over those claims unless one of three limited exceptions applies: the existence of "complex and novel" state issues; the "predominance" of the state law claims over the federal claim; or "exceptional circumstances."

However, once a court hears motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment, the court may have "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." In that instance, the court, on its own or in response to a motion, must weigh "considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties." If that occurs, there are important statute of limitations issues, as discussed in the Supreme Court's 2018 Artis v. District of Columbia decision.

Listen as this panel of experienced federal trial lawyers explores the nuances of this powerful jurisdictional tool and explains how it impacts plaintiffs and defendants.



  1. Operation of 28 USC 1367
    1. Application at the outset of litigation
    2. Application as the litigation unfolds
  2. Arguments for expanding jurisdiction
  3. Arguments for limiting jurisdiction
  4. Post-dismissal issues
    1. Limitations "savings clause"
    2. Appeal


The panel will review these and other notable issues:

  • Types of cases which present mixed jurisdiction issues
  • The content and relevant background of 28 USC 1367
  • Successful uses of 28 USC 1367 to limit or expand jurisdiction


Hegarty, Matthew
Matthew J. Hegarty

Hall & Evans

Mr. Hegarty joined the firm in 2012 and was promoted to Member effective September 2019. His practice concentrates on...  |  Read More

Molster, Charles
Charles B. Molster, III

The Law Offices of Charles B. Molster III

Mr. Molster has extensive experience as a trial lawyer handling complex litigation matters in federal and state courts...  |  Read More

Live Webinar

Buy Live Webinar
Includes Early Discount Savings of $50 (through 10/25/19)

Live Webinar


Buy Live Webinar & Recording
Includes special savings of $250 (through 10/25/19)

Live Webinar & Download


Live Webinar & DVD

$344 + $19.45 S&H

Other Formats
— Anytime, Anywhere

Includes Early Discount Savings of $50 (through 10/25/19)

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts. To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

48 hours after event



48 hours after event



10 business days after event

$247 + $19.45 S&H