Supplemental Jurisdiction
This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.
On this page:
Writing Template
Issue
I: The issue is whether the court has supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims where subject matter jurisdiction over the original claims was established by federal question jurisdiction.
Analysis
R: When a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the original claims in a civil action, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the original claims such that they form part of the same case or controversy.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the court [retains/does not retain] supplemental jurisdiction over the added claims.
Diversity Limitation
R: However, when diversity jurisdiction forms the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction over (1) claims by plaintiffs against parties added under Rule 14 (impleader), Rule 19 (compulsory joinder), Rule 20 (permissive joinder), or Rule 24 (intervention) or (2) claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 or intervening as plaintiffs under Rule 24, if doing so would undermine the diversity requirements.
A: Here, diversity jurisdiction [provides/does not provide] for the basis of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the court [retains/does not retain] supplemental jurisdiction over the added claims.
Discretionary Decline of Supplemental Jurisdiction
R: The court retains discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex state law issue, (2) the state law claim substantially predominates over the claims under original jurisdiction, (3) all original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed, or (4) exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the court will likely [choose/not choose] to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the additional claims.
Conclusion
C: Therefore, the court [has/does not have] supplemental jurisdiction over the additional claims because they [do/do not] form part of the same case or controversy under § 1367, and [pendent-party jurisdiction does/does not apply].
Usage Notes
JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.
The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.
The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.
The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.
Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.
Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].