National retailer argues to Eleventh Circuit that federal courts have broad discretion to exercise or not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, on a claim-by-claim basis

Client(s) National retailer

Jones Day presented argument on behalf of a national retailer in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, defending a district court’s decision to adjudicate most (but not all) of a plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims after dismissing his federal claims.

The plaintiff asserted federal and state law claims against the Firm’s client. He then conceded that his federal claims (under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982) failed, but continued to pursue state law claims for, among other things, malicious prosecution, false arrest, negligent supervision, assault, and battery. The district court granted summary judgment against all of the claims on the merits except for the state assault and battery claims. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the district court lost jurisdiction when it ruled against his federal claims or at least abused its discretion when it retained supplemental jurisdiction over only some of his state-law claims. At argument, our client explained to the contrary. Federal courts do not lose jurisdiction when a plaintiff concedes his federal claims because the resulting summary judgment is a decision on the merits. Moreover, district courts have discretion to retain or dismiss state law claims after rejecting federal claims, and they can do so on a claim-by-claim basis rather than wholesale.