28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 leaves a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Ritchey v. United States Office of Personnel Management · filed 2020-08-05(c)

Section 1367 and the cases cite by MetLife, however, state only that “[a] district court’s decision whether to exercise” supplemental jurisdiction “after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and instead considers whether this is a rare case in which a state-law claim necessarily presents substantial issues of federal law.

Section 1367(c) makes declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims discretionary, including after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Garcia v. City of McAllen, Texas · filed 2020-08-24(c)

The decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is discretionary by its terms.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed when the discretionary factors favor retention.

Chaudhary v. Chubb & Son, Inc. · filed 2021-02-23(c)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the Chaudharys’ second amended complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been disposed of before trial.

Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno · filed 2021-01-04(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) is not mandatory, and purely state law claims are regularly resolved in federal court through the exercise of diversity jurisdiction.

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

Fernandez v. Kademian · filed 2021-01-06(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.

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

DeSalvo v. Forma Group, LLC · filed 2021-01-06(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 accompanying state law claims.

Luna v. A & E Militello A Limited Partnership · filed 2021-01-06(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).

A court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of litigation.

Whitaker v. 1850 Westwood, LLC · filed 2021-01-06(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.”

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

Uriarte-Limon v. Xuan Minh Thi Nguyen · filed 2021-01-06(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Garcia v. HPTLA Properties Trust · filed 2021-01-06(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. HIT Portfolio I NTC Owner, LP · filed 2021-01-06(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Jones v. Manoukian · filed 2021-01-07(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 a state-law claim.

Jones v. Sunny Chin · filed 2021-01-08(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.

Luna v. Green · filed 2021-01-08(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 Person’s Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims. 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 an Unruh Act claim when fairness and comity raise concerns.

Garcia v. Ken-Lar, LLC · filed 2021-01-08(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 related state-law claims.

In Sun Kil v. RLR, LLC · filed 2021-01-08(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 Person’s Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may ask the plaintiff to justify retaining state-law claims.

Hernandez v. Safaie-Kia · filed 2021-01-11(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 other state law claims. 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 related state-law claim.

Garcia v. Naccachian · filed 2021-01-11(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 claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when they raise no particularly novel state-law issues and are intertwined with a federal claim.

McNair Custom Homes v. Hartt · filed 2021-01-13(c)

Further, Plaintiffs’ claims do not appear to raise any particularly novel issues of state law. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Garcia v. Ayres Hawthorne, L.P. · filed 2021-01-13(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, 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 court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Weilch v. RPM Jamba No. 5, Inc. · filed 2021-01-13(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.

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

Hernandez v. Pinguica Pal Chiroton, LP · filed 2021-01-13(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, 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 order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Estrada v. Marshalls of CA, LLC · filed 2021-01-13(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.

Maldonado v. SMV Housing, L.P. · filed 2021-01-13(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.

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

Williamson v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2021-01-13(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Perri v. Apple · filed 2021-01-19(c)

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

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

Soto v. Villegas · filed 2021-01-19(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. Bell Palm Plaza Limited Partnership · filed 2021-01-19(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when fairness and comity raise concerns.

Edmonds v. Kissinger Properties · filed 2021-01-26(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. BRE El Segundo Property Owner B LLC · filed 2021-01-27(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 state-law claims.

Garcia v. Peoples Union LLC · filed 2021-01-27(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 consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and to require the plaintiff to explain why it should do so.

Garcia v. El Cerro, LLC · filed 2021-01-27(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.

Shayler v. Jesperson · filed 2021-01-27(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.

Edmonds v. Barchester California, LP · filed 2021-01-27(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.

Davidson v. Kai · filed 2021-01-27(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.

Garcia v. Sai Pride, LLC · filed 2021-01-27(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 consider fairness and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Bouyer v. O.P.K. Corp. · filed 2021-01-28(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider fairness and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and to require a plaintiff to show cause before declining it.

In Sun Kil v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. · filed 2021-02-05(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).

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.

Shayler v. La Crescenta Foothill, LLC · filed 2021-02-05(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).

A court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should retain a state law claim.

Bouyer v. Florinda M. Piano · filed 2021-02-05(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.

Cox v. Commerce Petro Fuel, LLC · filed 2021-02-05(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).

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

Frazier v. Flores · filed 2021-02-08(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, California Disabled Persons Act claim, California Health & Safety Code claim, and negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Davidson v. Eagle's Nest Property, LLC · filed 2021-02-08(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, California Disabled Persons Act claim, California Health & Safety Code claim, and negligence 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 before deciding whether to retain them.

Ahn v. Reyes · filed 2021-02-09(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.

Hernandez v. 2315 Kuehner LLC · filed 2021-02-09(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.

United African-Asian Abilities Club v. 6401 Wilshire Boulevard, LLC · filed 2021-02-09(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 explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims before deciding whether to do so.

Gash v. 1811 N. Whitley, LLC · filed 2021-02-09(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 explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims before deciding whether to retain them.

Garcia v. Torrance Inn JV, LLC · filed 2021-02-09(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 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the case’s extensive litigation and the interests of justice and efficiency favor resolving them in federal court.

Jones v. Sheriff of Suffolk County · filed 2021-02-11

Again, however, because of his pro se status, I have considered whether to dismiss the state law claims or decline to exercise my supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. My conclusion is that the state law claims should be dismissed for failure to file the required notice of claim. This case is over three years old and even a glance at the docket sheet shows that it has been extensively litigated at great cost and burden to all parties. Permitting plaintiff to start anew in state court would not be in the interests of justice or efficiency, as the need to have filed a notice of claim is firmly established and regularly followed under state law.

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

Aguirre v. Thao · filed 2021-02-16(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, the negligence claim, and claims arising from the California Disabled Persons Act and the California Unfair Competition Act. 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.

Kong v. Chiou Investments, LLC · filed 2021-02-16(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and to require a plaintiff to show why that discretion should not be exercised.

Rutherford v. Mora · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to justify continued supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Whitaker v. Cotton on USA Inc. · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when no meaningful reason to decline exists and separate litigation would waste resources.

Florece v. Jose Pepper's Restaurants, LLC · filed 2021-02-24(a)

Defendants have not provided a meaningful basis on which to de- cline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Forcing Florece to liti- gate her related claims in different jurisdictions would be a waste of the parties’ and judicial resources.

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

Brooke v. Montebello Hills Travelodge LP · filed 2021-02-26(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 the court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bouyer v. Joe Rich Jeong · filed 2021-02-26(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.

Estrada v. Officemax North America, Inc. · filed 2021-02-26(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 over state-law claims, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Bouyer v. Yves Bright · filed 2021-03-01(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’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 the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Fernandez v. Eisele · filed 2021-03-01(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).

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

Estrada v. Dollar USA Discount, Inc. · filed 2021-03-01(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.”

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

Brooke v. Na Glendale LLC · filed 2021-03-01(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Perri v. Plaza Del Centro · filed 2021-03-01(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. 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 a state-law claim.

Shayler v. MSY LLC · filed 2021-03-01(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Uriarte-Limon v. Neiman · filed 2021-03-01(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Estrada v. 20310 Flamingo RE Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-03-01(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. 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.

Garcia v. G6 Hospitality Property LLC · filed 2021-03-01(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.

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

Bouyer v. Subway No 3525-0 · filed 2021-03-01(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after the federal claim is dropped.

Crystal Lake Community Association, Inc. v. Zilis · filed 2021-03-01(c)

While the Court is not required to remand the case here, it may nevertheless decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

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

Pier v. Ram Mafatal Prajapati · filed 2021-03-05(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 even when it exists.

Cox v. Dayco Funding Corporation · filed 2021-03-05(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 even when it exists.

Vasquez v. Caspian Persian and Mediterranean Cuisine · filed 2021-03-05(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 a related state claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Marsh v. Palmdale Shopping Center, Inc. · filed 2021-03-05(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 claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Shayler v. Jioco, Inc. · filed 2021-03-05(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 a state law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Rodgriguez · filed 2021-03-05(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.

In Sun Kil v. Weiss · filed 2021-03-05(c)

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

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims in its discretion.

Vasquez v. Darya Fine Persian Cuisine · filed 2021-03-05(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 even when it exists, including after considering the nature of the state law claim and the governing state law.

Lalli v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2021-03-05(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.”

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

Garcia v. Figueroa Plaza, LLC · filed 2021-03-05(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) permits a court weighing fairness and comity to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Bouyer v. Rancho Marketplace Gateway, LLC · filed 2021-03-08(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Jones v. Farahdel · filed 2021-03-10(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.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after considering the circumstances of the case and the character of state law.

Marquez v. Jinny Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2021-03-15(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 state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ghadiri v. Engine Components and Machine, Inc. · filed 2021-03-15(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 the state claim is within its supplemental jurisdiction.

Rutherford v. Alevy Family Properties C V LLC · filed 2021-03-15(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 over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yeong Lee v. Prado · filed 2021-03-15(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists, and the court may order a plaintiff to show cause before deciding whether to decline it.

Amber Machowski v. Park · filed 2021-03-15(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

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

Whitaker v. The Irvine Company LLC · filed 2021-03-15(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 a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Whitaker v. The Donna Karan Company Store LLC · filed 2021-03-15(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.

Whitaker v. Ba and sh America Corp · filed 2021-03-15(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.

Whitaker v. The Lovesac Company · filed 2021-03-15(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 considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to require the plaintiff to show why it should retain those claims.

Cox v. Rodriguez · filed 2021-03-23(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, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 leaves district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed, even when federal claims against other defendants remain.

Kaplan v. County of Orange · filed 2021-03-23

In keeping with the weight of authority on this topic, the Court has exercised its discretion in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Hernandez v. Jasleen Inc. · filed 2021-03-24(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Tawil Investments, LLC · filed 2021-03-24(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 over related state-law claims and permits a show-cause order before that decision.

Frazier v. Troy Investments, LP · filed 2021-03-24(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). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state law claims.

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

Gomez v. Greif Packaging, LLC · filed 2021-03-24(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 over state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ghadiri v. K and S Air Conditioning, Inc. · filed 2021-03-24(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.

Rutherford v. La Ranchera Mexican Food, Inc. · filed 2021-03-24(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Shayler v. Grupo Salinas Inc. · filed 2021-03-24(c)

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

Yeong Lee v. Hedrick · filed 2021-03-24(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.

Ghadiri v. Orange County Scaffold, Inc. · filed 2021-03-24(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 state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Holland v. Sonny Peters Investments LLC · filed 2021-03-24(c)

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

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

Garcia v. Jin Hyuk Lee · filed 2021-03-29(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’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 decline it.

Luna v. Fadey Incorporated · filed 2021-03-31(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, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence 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.

Maldonado v. Calzadilla · filed 2021-03-31(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.

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

Weatherspoon v. Benon and Stanman Southgate Partnership · filed 2021-03-31(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.

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. Liquor 1940, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31(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.

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

Estrada v. Atlantwhit, LLC · filed 2021-03-31(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) permits a court to order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Hua v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2021-03-31(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 court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Weatherspoon v. Hwang · filed 2021-03-31(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Pritchett v. Esparza · filed 2021-03-31(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).

Before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court may require the plaintiff to show why it should do so.

Perri v. AMF Tax Service · filed 2021-03-31(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Ahn v. Pomona Valley Service Center, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31(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 district court considering whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims must address whether doing so would foreclose those claims under state preclusion law.

Dorfman v. MGP Ingredients, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31

Yet, the court can’t decline supplemental jurisdiction—at least not without first addressing a novel holding by the Kansas Supreme Court.

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

Mister Bailey v. Macris · filed 2021-04-19(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bouyer v. Higashi · filed 2021-04-19(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).

In 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 jurisdiction should be exercised.

Fernandez v. Ortiz · filed 2021-04-19(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 (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 district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Ahn v. Ken Young · filed 2021-04-20(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. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim.

Brooke v. Treasure Mountain Holdings LLC · filed 2021-04-22(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.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction and the remaining state claims raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Moody v. McCullough · filed 2021-04-26(c)

Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 1367(c)(3). Moreover, the remaining state claims “raise novel or complex issues of state law” under § 1367(c)(1), determinations for which the state court is uniquely suited.

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

Shayler v. Yeghiaian · filed 2021-04-28(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.

Koo v. Peters · filed 2021-04-29(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, California’s Disabled Persons Act claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ahn v. Basraon LLC · filed 2021-05-05(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, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims. 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.

Cox v. Nieto Brothers Corporation · filed 2021-05-06(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.

Aguirre v. H and H Enterprise · filed 2021-05-07(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) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim.

Neal v. La Monarca Bakery V, LLC · filed 2021-05-12(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 district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Garcia v. Gutierrez · filed 2021-05-12(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 district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when fairness and comity may warrant declining it.

Kong v. Bae · filed 2021-05-12(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.

Lee v. AVG Cypress LP · filed 2021-05-20(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 considering state law claims to order the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Frazier v. Damus · filed 2021-05-20(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, California’s Disabled Persons Act claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and to require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Langer v. Ai Sunset, LLC · filed 2021-05-21(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) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yeong Lee v. Nguyen · filed 2021-05-21(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 a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Brooke v. S3 Hospitality LLC · filed 2021-05-21(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 a related state law claim.

Brooke v. USA Hotel Group LLC · filed 2021-05-21(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 district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yeong Lee v. Duran · filed 2021-05-21(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 district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Gonzales v. House Of Eden · filed 2021-05-21(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 district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ghadiri v. Tacos Queretaro Mexican Food · filed 2021-05-21(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 retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when they outnumber the federal claims, if the statutory grounds for declining jurisdiction do not warrant dismissal.

Leo Brynes Trust v. Brynes · filed 2021-05-25(c)

Neither circumstance (3) nor (4) is present here, and circumstances (1) and (2) do not support dismissal of the supplemental state law claims in issue. Although this case is factually complex, the case involves fraud and embezzlement claims that appear neither novel nor complex on their face. Also, although the state law claims outnumber the single Federal RICO claim, those claims are sufficiently interrelated to constitute the same case or controversy.

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

Cuevas v. Beaver · filed 2021-05-27(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.”

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. Yim · filed 2021-06-01(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 over remaining claims when the sole claim supporting original jurisdiction has been dismissed.

1075 Market Street Owners Assn v. Ushhs · filed 2021-06-02(c)

Because we affirm the dismissal of the sole claim giving rise to the district court’s original jurisdiction, we remand the claims within the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction and instruct the district court to consider exercising its discretion to dismiss them.

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

Estrada v. Atlantwhit, LLC · filed 2021-06-02(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 state-law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Garcia v. Amigo's Building Materials & Hardware, Inc. · filed 2021-06-02(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) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Ghadiri v. Riverdale Animal Hospital · filed 2021-06-04(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 related state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Vasquez v. Distractions Lounge · filed 2021-06-04(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.

Davidson v. Klein · filed 2021-06-04(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state law claims.

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

Yeong Lee v. Chu · filed 2021-06-04(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 related state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ghadiri v. AMPM · filed 2021-06-04(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.

Marquez v. Barchester California, L.P · filed 2021-06-04(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.

Brooke v. Tides Hospitality LLC · filed 2021-06-04(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising a novel issue of state law when economy, fairness, and convenience favor retention after extensive litigation near trial.

Zhang v. County of Monterey · filed 2021-06-04(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that economy, fairness, and convenience weigh heavily in favor of the retention of supplemental jurisdiction.