Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Supreme Court of the United States · 1966 · Civil Procedure

supplemental jurisdictionpendent jurisdictioncommon nucleus of operative factpendent jurisdictionsupplemental jurisdictioncommon nucleus of operative factjudicial economyconvenience

Facts

After Tennessee Consolidated closed one mine, its subsidiary hired Gibbs to open a new mine with members of a rival union and gave him a haulage contract. Armed members of a local UMW union violently prevented the mine from opening on August 15 and 16, 1960; after the UMW field representative returned with instructions from the international union to establish a limited picket line and prevent further violence, there was no more violence at the mine site, though picketing continued for nine months. Gibbs lost his superintendent job and did not perform the haulage contract, then sued only the international union, alleging federal secondary-boycott violations and a state-law conspiracy and boycott tort claim. The proof of the international union's responsibility for the initial violence was sketchy, and the union's later conduct showed it attempted to control the strike and suppress further violence.

Issue

Whether the federal district court had power to hear Gibbs's Tennessee claim alongside his § 303 federal claim, and if so whether the judgment on the state claim could stand. More specifically, the Court considered the scope of pendent jurisdiction and whether the international union could be held liable on the state tort claim consistently with labor-law limits and § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.

Rule

Pendent jurisdiction, as a matter of Article III power, exists when the federal claim is substantial enough to confer subject-matter jurisdiction and the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact such that the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. Even when that power exists, pendent jurisdiction is discretionary, not a plaintiff's right, and should be exercised in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, predominance of state issues, and the risk of jury confusion. In federal court adjudications of state tort claims arising out of labor disputes, § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act requires clear proof of actual participation in, authorization of, or ratification after actual knowledge of unlawful acts before a union may be held liable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Denver, Elena Morris sues Front Range Signal Works under a substantial federal securities-fraud claim based on a single financing deal. She also pleads a Colorado fraudulent-inducement claim arising from the same negotiations, emails, and closing documents, and both claims would ordinarily be tried together.

Does the district court have power to hear the state claim?

Explanation. The majority held that pendent jurisdiction power exists when the federal claim is substantial enough to support subject-matter jurisdiction and the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact so that a plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try them in one judicial proceeding. Identity of legal theory is unnecessary; the question is whether the entire action forms one constitutional case.