Torres-Rivera v. Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that having “the same parties, contracts, and course of action as the [original] claim” is sufficient to confer supplemental jurisdiction
• district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction where the state law claims involved some of the same parties but different grievances
• “The federal claim would make the whole suit removable, and § 1441(c)(2) would require the immediate remand of any state- law claim not within the supplemental jurisdiction.”
• “[A]ggregation of different litigants’ claims is not allowed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).