In the case of Things Remembered, Inc. v. Anthony A. Petrarca (1995), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court has discretion to hear related state law claims even after all federal claims have been dismissed from the lawsuit before trial. The dispute began when Things Remembered, Inc., an engraving company, sued its competitor Anthony A. Petrarca for patent infringement in a Federal District Court which also included supplemental state-law tortious interference claim against him and his employer Crystal Craft Industries Corp.. However, during pretrial proceedings, both parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice all their respective patent-related claims leaving only state-law claim unresolved which was then dismissed by District Court citing lack of jurisdiction as per 28 U.S.C §1367(c). This decision was affirmed by Sixth Circuit but later reversed by Supreme Court stating that dismissal under §1367(c) is discretionary not mandatory and thus remanded it back for further proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Things Remembered, Inc. v. Anthony A. Petrarca, Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C §1334(b), which grants federal courts jurisdiction over all civil proceedings arising under or related to bankruptcy cases. He argued that a proceeding is not "related to" a bankruptcy case simply because it may affect the debtor's rights in property; instead, he believed there must be an actual dispute about those rights before federal jurisdiction can exist. In this case, since Petrarca had already received full payment for his claim against Things Remembered and no longer had any stake in its bankruptcy proceedings, Justice Thomas contended that their dispute was merely a state-law contract issue unrelated to any matter of federal concern.