courts have supplemental jurisdiction over any claim that “derive[s] from a common nucleus of operative fact.” See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 358 F.3d 205, 213-14 (2d Cir.2004). The Lanham Act and Copyright Act claims are based on Wayans’ alleged copying of plaintiffs screenplay and the production and distribution of the movie based on that screenplay. The state law claims arise from Gold’s role in procuring plaintiffs screenplay on behalf of Wayans. Although the facts giving rise to the federal claims are not identical to the facts giving rise to the state claims, they all relate to Slice of Pie’s efforts to have Wayans review and use its screenplay. See Jones, 358 F.3d at 208 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the state claims in this case
holding that claims for erisa violations arose from the purchase or sale of debtors securities holding equal credit opportunity act claims and debt collection counterclaims to be sufficiently linked because both arose from the plaintiffs decisions to purchase ford ears holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that a claim for violation of the fair debt collection practices act is not a personal injury tort claim holding that reporting a consumers debt to a creditreporting agency constitutes collection of the debt under  1692gb