Blogs

Eleventh Circuit rejects all-or-nothing dismissal of state-law claims

9/30/26

By: Robert Scavone Jr.

In a significant decision for federal practitioners, the Eleventh Circuit addressed an issue it had not previously resolved: whether a district court may continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some state-law claims while declining jurisdiction over others after all federal claims have been dismissed. In Mueller v. Walmart Corporation (Sept. 16, 2026), the court held that district courts have discretion to make supplemental-jurisdiction decisions on a claim-by-claim basis, rejecting the plaintiff’s contention that courts must either retain or dismiss all remaining state-law claims as a package.

The case arose from claims asserted against Walmart and one of its employees after a suspected shoplifting incident. The plaintiff brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, along with several Georgia tort claims, including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, and battery. After the plaintiff abandoned his federal claims, the district court dismissed them and then faced the question of what to do with the remaining state-law causes of action.

Rather than treating the state-law claims collectively, the district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. At the same time, it declined to exercise jurisdiction over the assault and battery claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The district court reasoned that the assault and battery claims were “‘bitterly disputed,’ particularly with regard to the credibility of Mueller’s testimony.”

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that this approach was impermissible and that supplemental jurisdiction must be exercised on an all-or-nothing basis. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Focusing on the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court emphasized that Congress authorized courts to decline jurisdiction over “a claim,” indicating that supplemental-jurisdiction decisions may be made individually rather than globally. The court further noted that supplemental jurisdiction is intended to be a flexible doctrine and observed that other federal appellate courts considering the issue had likewise recognized claim-specific discretion.

Applying that principle, the court concluded that the district court acted within its broad discretion. The retained claims had been fully developed and were capable of efficient resolution as legal issues, while the assault and battery claims depended on disputed facts and witness credibility. The Eleventh Circuit found that the district court appropriately balanced considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in deciding to keep some claims while relinquishing others.

The court reached a different conclusion, however, with respect to the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. The district court had entered summary judgment after finding that the underlying shoplifting charge was dismissed as part of a plea agreement resolving a separate obstruction charge, thereby preventing the plaintiff from establishing favorable termination under Georgia law. The Eleventh Circuit held that the record contained competing evidence regarding the reason for the dismissal of the shoplifting charge and that a reasonable jury could resolve that dispute in the plaintiff’s favor.

Under Mueller, defense counsel should evaluate each remaining state-law claim independently once federal claims are dismissed. Claims that have been fully litigated, are the subject of pending dispositive motions, or can be resolved efficiently as legal matters may be strong candidates for retention in federal court, while fact-intensive claims may be appropriate candidates for dismissal without prejudice.

Federal practitioners should expect the case to become a frequently cited procedural precedent. While the underlying dispute involved retail-loss-prevention claims, the jurisdictional holding may have important implications across employment, civil-rights, insurance, commercial, and premises-liability litigation whenever federal claims are dismissed before trial.

For more information, please contact Robert Scavone Jr. at robert.scavone@fmglaw.com or your local FMG Law attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.