28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Brooke v. Sunstone Von Karman, LLC · filed 2020-07-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) lets a court require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Romero v. Schweitzer · filed 2020-07-02(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim.

Bouyer v. Flying Desert Lakes, LLC · filed 2020-07-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bouyer v. Burbank Holdings 2000, LLC · filed 2020-07-06(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Mageno v. Access Bryant SPC · filed 2020-07-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Gonzales v. Strack Ground · filed 2020-07-06(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Fernandez v. Green Cerritos Investment, LLC · filed 2020-07-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Garcia v. Goldstein · filed 2020-07-06(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Jackson v. S.R.R. Group Inc · filed 2020-07-07(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

HOLLAND v. BADIKYAN · filed 2020-07-07(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the case.

Frazier v. Tam Nguyen · filed 2020-07-13(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code section 19955 et seq., and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Bouyer v. Jordahl · filed 2020-07-13(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Fernandez v. 113 N. Garfield LLC · filed 2020-07-13(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Walker v. Classic Petroleum Inc. · filed 2020-07-15(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Lee v. Vo · filed 2020-07-16(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Kown v. Vong · filed 2020-07-20(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Zarian v. Cinmark Company, L.P. · filed 2020-07-20(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Soto v. Yamasaki · filed 2020-07-20(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claims asserted in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when that jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. ABC Investments, LLC · filed 2020-07-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rhambo v. Pegasus Trucking, Inc. · filed 2020-07-21(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” ... The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Kang · filed 2020-07-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Estrada v. Bonnett Irrigation, Inc. · filed 2020-07-22(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Perri v. Heprand Hospitality, Inc. · filed 2020-07-22(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) lets a court consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Estrada v. Adock · filed 2020-07-22(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Rutherford v. Solanki · filed 2020-07-22(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when jurisdiction over a related claim exists.

Barekat v. Wheatland · filed 2020-07-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a case-specific decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Perri v. 9920 Valley Blvd LLC · filed 2020-07-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) requires a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Barekat v. Heinecke Gould Properties LLC · filed 2020-07-29(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Cho v. Ittah · filed 2020-07-31(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims may order the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Hernandez v. Kassabian · filed 2020-07-31(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after considering whether pursuing it in federal court evades state filing restrictions.

Rutherford v. Allied Tax Group LLC · filed 2020-08-05(c)

Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Kong v. Lindskog · filed 2020-08-05(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Marquez v. Khan Hotels, Inc. · filed 2020-08-07(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Bouyer v. Malkhasian · filed 2020-08-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims before deciding whether to retain them.

Bouyer v. Sylmar Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. · filed 2020-08-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Rutherford v. Winfund Investment LLC · filed 2020-08-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Bouyer v. Golden State Enterprises, LLC · filed 2020-08-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for consideration of judicial economy, convenience, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Jin Lee v. Elite Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2020-08-12(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims may order the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Marquez v. Ross Stores, Inc. · filed 2020-08-12(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bouyer v. Kabakoff · filed 2020-08-12(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Marquez v. Jennings · filed 2020-08-12(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while it remains unclear whether the plaintiffs can state federal claims.

Tasfay v. Ramos · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because it is not clear whether Plaintiffs can state any federal claims, the Court will determine at a later stage whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiffs may be asserting.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Rutherford v. Baseline Center LLC · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and to require the plaintiff to show cause for exercising that jurisdiction.

Bouyer v. 7200 Tujunga Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Neal v. Kim · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Rutherford v. Turbulent Enterprises Limited Partnership · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) requires a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity; the court may order the plaintiff to show cause on that question.

Neal v. Henry Henke Building Limited Partnership · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Rutherford v. Carl Karcher Enterprises LLC · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gonzalez v. J-Sky Investment II, Inc. · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Garcia v. R.A. Glendale LLC · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Bouyer v. Mader · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and permits the court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should hear state law claims.

Marquez v. Yao Shi International LLC · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Lammey v. One Imperial Plaza L.P. · filed 2020-08-21(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims accompanying a federal claim.

Fernandez v. MacDonald and Albert, LP · filed 2020-08-21(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Frazier v. Mex · filed 2020-08-21(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Kong v. Vincent Glen, LLC · filed 2020-08-21(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Marquez v. Trico Trading Corporation · filed 2020-08-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the basis for federal-question jurisdiction falls away.

Owens-El v. Maryland Transit Administration · filed 2020-08-26

To the extent that this Court could be deemed to have had federal question jurisdiction over this case earlier in the proceeding, it declines to exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Garcia v. Gardena Group Holdings, LLC · filed 2020-08-28(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Garcia v. Arellano · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) requires courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Perri v. Whittier Neighborhood Market, Inc. · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim before deciding whether to decline jurisdiction.

Bouyer v. Groff Equity Management, LLC · filed 2020-08-28(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Jones v. Capri Urban Baldwin, LLC · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Perri v. Y and C Pacific LLC · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Kong v. C I C Investment Corp. · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Marquez v. Ronald v. Franco · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the litigation.

Bouyer v. Milan Tuscany, LLC · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Chapman, LLC · filed 2020-08-31(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. TNC Anaheim Plaza LLC · filed 2020-09-01(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. AP-Garden Grove LLC · filed 2020-09-01(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims may order the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Whitaker v. Fox Investment Company, LLC · filed 2020-09-01(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Rutherford v. Zorayan · filed 2020-09-08(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Rutherford v. Pedicini · filed 2020-09-08(c)

The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Act. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Davidson v. Fainbarg III, LP · filed 2020-09-08(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Jin Lee v. MKK Investment Corporation · filed 2020-09-08(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Singh · filed 2020-09-08(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Langer v. Cash Plus, Inc. · filed 2020-09-08(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Rutherford v. Foothill Plaza Shopping Center, LLC · filed 2020-09-09(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court considering supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim to require the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise it.

Rutherford v. Magloma, Inc. · filed 2020-09-10(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Aguirre v. G.M.S.P., INC. · filed 2020-09-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bedwell v. May · filed 2020-09-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Whitaker v. 1602 Ocean Avenue LLC · filed 2020-09-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court considering fairness and comity to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Frazier v. Ornelas · filed 2020-09-11(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Health & Safety Code claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related claims even when that jurisdiction exists.

Vasquez v. Marquez, Bruce R.M.D · filed 2020-09-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Aguirre v. Herrera · filed 2020-09-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Knisely v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC · filed 2020-09-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Garcia v. Kim · filed 2020-09-23(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims before deciding whether to decline jurisdiction.

Gonzalez v. Ramhaddad LLC · filed 2020-09-23(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Aguirre v. Wong · filed 2020-09-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Marquez v. Mann Enterprises Inc. · filed 2020-09-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Westhaven Center, LLC · filed 2020-09-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Fernandez v. Downey · filed 2020-09-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Perri v. Adore Kings, LP · filed 2020-09-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Rutherford v. Cal-Perl Upland 5, L.P. · filed 2020-09-29(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims that overlap with federal claims when judicial economy favors hearing them together.

Johnson v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-09-30(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these common law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Because of these overlapping contours, the interests of judicial economy weigh in favor of this Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law false arrest claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Perri v. Khoe · filed 2020-09-30(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’ Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while the court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Aguirre v. Vogue Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-09-30(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’ Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Davidson v. Station Liquor, Inc. · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Perri v. Wilshire 26, LLC · filed 2020-10-01(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to order the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Aguirre v. Jaramillo · filed 2020-10-01(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(c), a district court should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Serless West v. City of Albany, Georgia · filed 2020-10-02(c)

When a district court has discretion under Section 1367(c) to either retain or reject supplemental jurisdiction, it should consider the factors the Supreme Court announced in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966): judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should retain those claims.

Garcia v. Tania Arias Calderon · filed 2020-10-05(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and permits it to seek a showing from the plaintiff before deciding.

Whitaker v. United Broadway Real Estate Company, LLC · filed 2020-10-05(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Whitaker v. 1810 Downtown Restaurant, Corp. · filed 2020-10-05(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and to require a plaintiff to show cause before making that decision.

Rhambo v. A.B. Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2020-10-07(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Bouyer v. Bricks Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2020-10-09(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to weigh fairness and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Harmon v. Montessori Academy of Arcadia · filed 2020-10-13(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Whitaker v. Douglas Emmett 2014, LLC · filed 2020-10-13(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rutherford v. Playa Galleria Shopping Center, LLC · filed 2020-10-14(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over PAGA claims or remand them to state court.

Madeira v. Converse, Inc. · filed 2020-10-19(c)

Instead, the district court had discretion to either exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA claims or remand them back to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Whitaker v. West Valley Owner LLC · filed 2020-10-19(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Garcia v. Yoo · filed 2020-10-19(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Garcia v. 4741 Florence LLC · filed 2020-10-19(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Lee v. Montrose Pacific, LLC · filed 2020-10-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Shayler v. Zarrabi · filed 2020-10-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the litigation.

Perri v. Hong · filed 2020-10-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Bouyer v. 18400 Vanowen, Inc. · filed 2020-10-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Whitaker v. 435 Bedford LLC · filed 2020-10-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Weilch v. A N D Liquor, Inc. · filed 2020-11-03(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Walker v. Pheng · filed 2020-11-03(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Bouyer v. Little Caesars No 01232-00009 · filed 2020-11-09(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) requires a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cabrera v. Hot Topic, Inc. · filed 2020-11-09(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Sung Choi v. NHW Investor, LLC · filed 2020-11-09(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Nguyen · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Garcia v. Sehan Los Angeles, LLC · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Garcia v. Bell Palm Plaza Limited Partnership · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the litigation.

Fernandez v. Hastings Village Investment Company, L.P · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Garcia v. Gallanis · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Bouyer v. Adly Enterprises, LLC · filed 2020-11-18(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Luna v. Salsa and Beer 4 Inc · filed 2020-11-19(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

McNeal v. Wilshire Re Venture LLC · filed 2020-11-19(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to consider fairness and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Garcia v. Puente · filed 2020-11-19(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Whitaker v. Duesenberg Investment Company · filed 2020-11-19(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Garcia v. Back · filed 2020-11-19(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to ask a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim before deciding whether to retain it.

Estrada v. Lakewood Marketplace LLC · filed 2020-11-19(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Williams v. A&M Smog · filed 2020-11-30(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Whitaker v. 1612 Cahuenga, LLC · filed 2020-11-30(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Lammey v. Valdry · filed 2020-11-30(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ghadiri v. Yo Fire · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Marshalls of CA, LLC · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Lee v. DJSS Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Prieto · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when that jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Daisys Tacos No. 2, Inc. · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when that jurisdiction exists.

Amber Machowski v. Suite 123 LLC · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Barekat v. Planet Care Hair Salon · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists, based on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the state-law claims.

Barekat v. J.A. Wall and Sons LLC · filed 2020-12-03(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Ali · filed 2020-12-03(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Tustin Melk LLC · filed 2020-12-03(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a listed ground applies, including substantial predominance of state claims or exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons.

Yiun v. 840 Fairfax Owner LLC · filed 2020-12-08(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when judicial economy and fairness favor hearing them.

Ibarra-Berrios v. ACI-HERZOG, Joint Venture · filed 2020-12-08(c)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Law 44, Law 115, Law 80, Law 100, and Articles 1802 and 1803. Judicial economy and fairness compel the Court to entertain the Commonwealth law causes of action.