Allstate Interiors & Exteriors, Inc. v. Stonestreet Construction, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding non-diverse claims did not “substantially predominate” over claims that the court has jurisdiction over because the claims depended on the same body of evidence and sought a similar legal remedy
• explaining that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as claims over which there is original federal jurisdiction
• addressing a district court’s discretion to retain supplemental subject matter jurisdiction after the claims on which supplemental jurisdiction was originally based are no longer live
• “State and federal claims are part of the same ‘case or controversy’ . . . if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”
• “State and federal claims are part of the same ‘case or controversy’ […] if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”
• supplemental jurisdiction not prohibited by § 1367(b) over non-diverse third-party claims asserted by defendant in diversity action; prohibition on joinder of non-diverse party by “plaintiff” in § 1367(b) refers only to “original plaintiff in the action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).