Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where “[t]he only link between” a plaintiff’s federal and state law claim “is the general employer-employee relationship between the parties” supplemental jurisdiction does not exist
• explaining that it is “obvious” that a district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction “when the same acts violate parallel federal and state laws[.]”
• stating that the inquiry is whether the federal and state claims are merely alternative theories of recovery based on the same acts
• stating that this determination must be made on a case-by-case basis and pointing out that many courts have rejected the “loose nexus” test
• vacating a district court judgment for lack of jurisdiction even after a trial on the merits
• declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over contract and tort claims arising under state law where court had original jurisdiction over FLSA claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).