28 U.S.C. § 1367

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.

Holland v. Seven Seas Jobbers, Inc. · filed 2021-06-07(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) lets a district court decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after considering the nature of the claims and the interests of fairness and comity.

Kwon v. Monas Service Inc. · filed 2021-06-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute codifies these principles. ... Depending on a host of factors, then -- 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 - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a written showing before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Luna v. Rife · filed 2021-06-10(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, 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 cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Ed Hull v. Ho Tien Le · filed 2021-06-10(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) permits a court concerned with fairness and comity to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Lee v. Schreiner · filed 2021-06-10(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, California’s Disabled Persons Act, California’s Unfair Competition Act, and negligence 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 state-law claims.

Ahn v. Truaong · filed 2021-06-10(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, California’s Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ed Hull v. Roic Cypress West, LLC · filed 2021-06-10(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 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

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

Jones v. Islam · filed 2021-06-14(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 cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gougis v. Choi · filed 2021-06-16(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 district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Kim v. Zada · filed 2021-06-16(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.

Luna v. Elias · filed 2021-06-16(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 a state-law claim.

Luna v. Kohanoff · filed 2021-06-23(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 district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims despite dismissing the federal claims when the issues substantially overlap.

Beard v. Town of Topsail Beach,et al · filed 2021-06-25(c)

Here, the court in its discretion exercises jurisdiction over the state law claims for purposes of resolving this motion, where the issues raised by the state law claims substantially overlap with the issues presented by the federal claims.

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

Yeong Lee v. H and S Energy, LLC · filed 2021-06-28(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yeong Lee v. Donut Boss LLC · filed 2021-06-28(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 the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Portia Mason v. Nature Republic International, LLC · filed 2021-06-29(c)

The sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff.

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

Ho v. Angelopoulos · filed 2021-06-30(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.

Yeong Lee v. Willey · filed 2021-06-30(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 over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yeong Lee v. Islands Restaurants, LLC · filed 2021-06-30(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 other state law claims and the dismissal of those claims pursuant to 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 order the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Ed Hull v. Little · filed 2021-06-30(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’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) gives a district court discretion to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and to require a plaintiff to show cause before it decides.

Cox v. La Adelita Food Company, Inc. · filed 2021-07-07(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 related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Walker v. Navarro · filed 2021-07-07(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.

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may require a party to show why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Gonzalez v. Torres · filed 2021-07-07(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 explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Aguirre v. Victor Hugo Torres Palencia · filed 2021-07-08(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, California’s Disabled Persons Act, California’s Unfair Competition Act, and negligence claims.

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.

Cleveland v. AME Holdings, Inc. · filed 2021-07-08(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 district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Cleveland v. Manzanita Propety Management, LLC · filed 2021-07-09(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) calls for the court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Rhambo v. Oganesian · filed 2021-07-09(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’ 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.

United African-Asian Abilities Club v. Turk · filed 2021-07-09(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Ahn v. Liang · filed 2021-07-09(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Walker v. Tinalux Associates, LP · filed 2021-07-09(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 to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Luna v. Mirem, LLC · filed 2021-07-09(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’ 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 state-law claims.

Cleveland v. DBD KAM LLC · filed 2021-07-09(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Soto v. Vincent Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2021-07-09(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.

Cuevas v. Lavan Property, LLC · filed 2021-07-09(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 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when doing so aids efficient resolution of the dispute and no subsection (c) exception applies.

Van Leer v. University Contracting Company LLC · filed 2021-07-09(a), (c)(1)–(4)

Because exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these claims will aid the efficient disposition of the parties’ dispute, and none of the exceptions apply, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), (c)(1)–(4), the Court exercises jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining State-law claims.

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

Cuevas v. Vanowen LLC · filed 2021-07-13(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.” ... 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 district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Dorsey v. Pasadena Commercial Development Company, LLC · filed 2021-07-14(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 related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Ed Hull v. Spot Investments, LP · filed 2021-07-18(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 after considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Back v. Kettle · filed 2021-07-22(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- 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 - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

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

Redick v. Wing Hop Fung Ginseng, Inc. · filed 2021-07-22(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 and any related 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 state-law claim.

Kim v. Garcia · filed 2021-07-23(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 state law claims and permits them to consider fairness and comity in deciding whether to exercise it.

Cleveland v. Chin Suk Koh · filed 2021-07-27(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 related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Dunn v. Lim · filed 2021-07-29(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 even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Back v. Gia Investment Group LLC · filed 2021-08-05(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 related state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ghadiri v. Selman Family Denistry, Inc. · filed 2021-08-05(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when fairness and comity weigh against doing so.

Walker v. Veneto Harbour Cove, LLC · filed 2021-08-09(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, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code section 19955, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Kim v. 5500 Franklin JV, LLC · filed 2021-08-09(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, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

When 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.

Portia Mason v. Jagger Diamonds, Inc. · filed 2021-08-19(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) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Cuevas v. Bacall · filed 2021-08-19(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Kim v. Chang Hyu Shin · filed 2021-08-19(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims before the court decides whether to retain them.

Gash v. SEJ Financial, LLC · filed 2021-08-19(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) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

United African-Asian Abilities Club v. 8250 Lankershim Owner, LLC · filed 2021-08-19(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Cleveland v. Trujillo · filed 2021-08-20(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 court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims before deciding whether to retain them.

Dunn v. 5116 Lankershim LLC · filed 2021-08-20(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, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Sanchez v. Jeff Velasquez DDS · filed 2021-08-26(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 after considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Kim v. Caproni · filed 2021-08-31(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- 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 - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion over whether to hear related state-law claims and permits a show-cause order before that decision.

Kim v. CIM H and H 1651 Highland, LP · filed 2021-08-31(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 and any related state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after considering fairness and comity.

Kim v. 1115 Arrow Hwy LLC · filed 2021-08-31(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 and any related state law claims. 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.

Uriarte-Limon v. United Capital Investments, LLC · filed 2021-09-02(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 (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, or 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 related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Kim v. 11104 Whittier Blvd, LLC · filed 2021-09-03(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 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related third-party claims when they would add complexity, cost, and time to the case.

Alaska Airlines Inc v. Endurance American Insurance Co · filed 2021-09-03

Even if the Court assumes, without deciding, that the claims asserted by Alaska Airlines against Endurance and the claims asserted by Endurance against USAIG, arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims asserted against USAIG in the Third-Party Complaint ... because of the complexity, cost, and time it would add to the case.

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

Dunn v. 10011 Washington Blvd., LLC · filed 2021-09-09(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, including at an early stage of litigation.

Portia Mason v. National Office Liquidators, LLC · filed 2021-09-14(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’ 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.

Walker v. Raffis Enterprises Inc. · filed 2021-09-14(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.

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

Valencia v. Canola, LLC · filed 2021-09-14(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 cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Cox v. Moran · filed 2021-09-14(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.

Dunn v. 5850 Washington, LLC · filed 2021-09-14(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.

Bryant v. Tsai · filed 2021-09-14(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.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Old Country Millwork, Inc. · filed 2021-09-14(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 related state-law claims.

Kim v. Hing Wa Lee Plaza, LLC · filed 2021-09-20(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 related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act claims after dismissing related federal civil rights claims, consistent with Tennessee’s preference that its courts hear those claims.

Devereux v. Knox Cnty., Tenn. · filed 2021-09-22(c)

Gregory simply holds that it is valid, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, for a district court to exercise its discretion to decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction. ... Thus, under governing precedent, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ TGTLA claims.

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

Yiun v. Prendiville · filed 2021-09-23(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 any related state law claims. 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 related state-law claims.

Holland v. Bhattarai · filed 2021-09-24(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 Person’s Act, California Health & Safety Code section 19955, and negligence. 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.

Frazier v. Hattem · filed 2021-09-24(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, 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 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when a federal claim survives, the state claims do not substantially predominate, and no other reason warrants declining jurisdiction.

MEBANE V. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. · filed 2021-09-27(c)

Here, the Court finds that Mebane’s state law claims appear to arise under relatively well-developed common law. The federal and state law claims appear to overlap, such that the state law issues do not substantially predominate over the federal issues and issues in common. The Court has not dismissed Mebane’s ADEA claim. Finally, there are no compelling reasons to deny supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Mebane’s N.C. common law claims outlined in Counts Four through Nine of his Third Amended Complaint.

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

In Sun Kil v. 2021 WJB, LLC · filed 2021-09-28(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 and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) lets a district court consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of the state claims, governing state law, and the relationship between state and federal claims when deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Langer v. Golbahar Investments LLC · filed 2021-09-28(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- 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 - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

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 litigation.

Bryant v. Walnut 76, Inc. · filed 2021-09-28(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 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

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.

Maldonado v. Com-Res LLC · filed 2021-09-28(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 (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 consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and to require the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise that jurisdiction.

Dunn v. Danziger · filed 2021-09-28(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff.

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

Cabrera v. The Village Courtyard, Inc. · filed 2021-09-30(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) allows a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to order the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Cox v. Trutanich · filed 2021-09-30(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 require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Neal v. Khalifian · filed 2021-09-30(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 require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Alonzo v. IPP-Stores, LLC · filed 2021-10-01(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 state-law claims.

Portia Mason v. Top To Top, Inc. · filed 2021-10-01(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Delapaz v. Naydavood · filed 2021-10-08(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.

Jones v. Noparast · filed 2021-10-08(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.

Dorsey v. Cal Pacific Hacienda Properties, LLC · filed 2021-10-08(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 a district court discretion to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they may substantially predominate over federal claims or compelling reasons may warrant declining jurisdiction.

Kwon v. Maria De Jesus Ramirez · filed 2021-10-08(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). ... The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim and other state law claims for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue, substantially predominates over claims within original jurisdiction, all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons.

Amber Machowski v. Auburndale Properties, Inc. · filed 2021-10-08(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.”

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

Delapaz v. Kao · filed 2021-10-13(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, Disabled Persons Act claim, UCL claim, and negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Under § 1367(c), a court may order a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Koo v. First Ventura Realty, LLC · filed 2021-10-13(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.

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

Alonzo v. CLP Home Furnishings, Inc. · filed 2021-10-18(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Amber Machowski v. 1661 First Street, Inc. · filed 2021-10-22(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.

Yeong Lee v. Warner Center L.P. · filed 2021-10-22(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.

Ahn v. Glendora Plaza Co., A General Partnership · filed 2021-10-22(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, including after an inadequate response to an order to show cause.

Yeong Lee v. Triantos · filed 2021-10-22(c)

Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims and the dismissal of those claims pursuant to 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 state law claims.

Zendejas v. Tri-Global Group, LLC · filed 2021-10-25(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, California’s Unfair Competition Act, and negligence. 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.

Dorsey v. F H Associates, LLC · filed 2021-10-25(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, 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 district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Alonzo v. Owl Venice LLC · filed 2021-10-27(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 related state law claims.

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

Brooke v. H.I.S. of San Bernardino Inc. · filed 2021-10-28(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) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and permits it to require the plaintiff to show cause on that question.

Alonzo v. Buffalo Exchange, Ltd · filed 2021-10-28(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 (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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when a related state law claim falls within their supplemental jurisdiction.

Amber Machowski v. Johnson · filed 2021-11-01(c)

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

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation and may require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Walker v. Galvan · filed 2021-11-01(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 district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim brought alongside an ADA claim when predominance or other compelling reasons may warrant declining jurisdiction.

Ghadiri v. OC Concrete, LLC · filed 2021-11-01(c)(2), (c)(4)

The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for similar reasons.

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

Williamson v. 8 LA Pizzas, LLC. · filed 2021-11-02(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 and any related state law claims. 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 related state-law claims.

Dunn v. Mollica Property Investments, LLC · filed 2021-11-02(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 and any related state law claims. 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 related state-law claims.

Neal v. 14000 Ventura Boulevard, Inc. · filed 2021-11-02(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 and any related state law claims. 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 related state-law claims when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Valencia v. Sun Toa Lew · filed 2021-11-02(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 and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as federal claims and allows a court to retain those claims when they raise no novel or complex state-law issue and do not substantially predominate.

United States of America v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2021-12-03(a), (c)(1), (c)(2)

While I could decline to accept jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice, I find it appropriate to decide those claims because they “arise out of the same interrelated series of events or transactions and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.” IntraComm, Inc. v. Bajaj, 492 F.3d 285, 290 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, the state common law claims do not “raise[] a novel or complex issue of State law” or “substantially predominate[]” over the other claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (2).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim when its discretionary factors favor jurisdiction, including shared evidence and judicial economy.

Boutte v. Lopinto, III · filed 2021-12-16(c)

The Court finds that the discretionary factors in Section 1367 militate in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Robinson’s remaining state law claim for bystander damages.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if the plaintiff gives an inadequate response to an order to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Neal v. 1810 Downtown Restaurant, Corp. · filed 2022-04-29(c)

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

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

Zendejas v. Nino · filed 2022-04-29(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.

Fernandez v. Vega · filed 2022-04-29(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.

Back v. Kobayakawa · filed 2022-04-29(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.

Cuevas v. Burman · filed 2022-04-29(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.

Ventura v. 21128-40 Ventura Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-04-29(c)

The Court therefore further 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 accompanying state-law claims to proceed while viable federal claims remain, with their validity addressed through later motions.

Mason v. Connecticut Department of Correction · filed 2022-01-03

If there are no facially plausible federal law claims against any of the named defendants, then the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On the other hand, if there are any viable federal law claims that remain, then the validity of any accompanying state law claims may be appropriately addressed in the usual course by way of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.

Section 1367(c) gives courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after weighing judicial economy, duplicative litigation, and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Cook 290601 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-02-02(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction with regard to Defendants MDOC and Washington. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against them will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendant Davids.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of state-law claims to the court’s discretion when the federal claims against those defendants are dismissed before trial.

Green 189440 v. Covert · filed 2022-02-15(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.”

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants with pending federal claims while declining it for state law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed.

Gardiner 383334 v. Corizon Health, Inc. · filed 2022-02-24(c)

Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Corizon, Bedient, Bergh, Wright, and Westcomb, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against these Defendants. However, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Gasperich, Lancour, and Schroeder will be dismissed, and the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after class allegations supporting CAFA jurisdiction are dropped when the statutory and common-law factors favor retention.

Rey v. LCMC Health Care Partners, LLC · filed 2022-03-02(c)

Plaintiffs’ elimination of their class-action allegations, which this Court previously held supported federal subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA, does not mandate that the Court cede jurisdiction over the case. ... Thus, under the applicable statutory and common-law factors, this Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 is appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims remain pending through litigation and are tried to verdict.

Hernandez v. Snider · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

The district court was well within its discretion to retain jurisdiction, particularly when federal claims remained pending throughout the litigation and were ultimately tried to verdict.

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

Valencia v. Granada Equities LLC · filed 2022-03-17(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 should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Rhambo v. Kashishian · filed 2022-03-23(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 district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after considering the circumstances of the case, the claims, and governing state law.

Cauley v. Anchor Investments · filed 2022-03-24(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- 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 - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim, a court may require the plaintiff to show cause under § 1367(c).

Irizawa v. California Credit Union · filed 2022-03-24(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 it.

Zendejas v. Elsa Gallant · filed 2022-03-24(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 the Disabled Persons Act, Unfair Competition Law, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 requires a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when none of the statutory grounds for declining jurisdiction applies.

Copper v. City of Fargo · filed 1994-12-30(c)

Since this court concludes that none of the exceptions listed above apply to the circumstances of this case, it must ...accept jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged by plaintiffs.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when no statutory ground warrants declining it.

Optical Alignment v. Alignment Servs. · filed 1995-08-08(c)

Based on its application of the Gibbs factors as well as those outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court concludes that it is not appropriate to remand the state law claims and, as such, the court will exercise its discretion to hear the entire case.

Section 1367(a) requires a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when no exception in subsections (b) or (c) applies.

Timm v. Delong · filed 1998-06-22(a)

Therefore, in the absence of the circumstances explicitly enumerated in subsections (b) and (c), section 1367(a) requires the court to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Timm’s state law claim.

Section 1367(c) does not permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when no statutory exception applies to a state-law claim forming part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Hucul Advertising v. Charter Twp. Of Gaines · filed 2014-02-05(c)

Therefore, where no statutory exception applies, a district court cannot abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(c) leaves the court discretion to decide whether to remand remaining state-law claims even if the plaintiff agreed to a federal forum.

Marshall v. Maropco, Inc. · filed 2017-02-22(c)

Here, the district court is exercising its discretion under section 1367(c) to determine whether it should remand the case. The court’s exercise of its discretion here does not depend on whether the plaintiffs waived their right to file the instant motion. Thus, the court may determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a), as extended to the Court of International Trade, permits supplemental jurisdiction over a takings claim intertwined with an import embargo dispute.

B-West Imports, Inc. v. United States · filed 1995-02-24(a)

In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) states that district courts “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form a part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (Supp. II 1990). This provision extends to the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1585 (1988). ... Either the takings claim arises out of an import embargo, which defendants dispute, or supplemental jurisdiction applies, as defendants concede.

Section 1367(a) allows the Court of International Trade to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a direct claim between private parties when it has original jurisdiction over the action and the claim is part of the same case or controversy.

Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States · filed 2007-08-21(a)

As to the now existing Defendants, including the Defendant-Intervenors, Plaintiff’s claim is related to the same case and controversy, which is Commerce’s administration of the Byrd Amendment offset distribution program. The issues and parties being sufficiently intertwined, this court has the power to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and entertain a direct claim by a private party against a private party.

Section 1367(a), applied to the Court of International Trade through § 1585, permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that arise from the same case or controversy as claims within that court’s original jurisdiction.

Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Insurance · filed 2010-03-26(a)

Because plaintiffs’ claims against the surety defendants and many of their claims against the United States arise out of the same case or controversy, the court concludes that it possesses § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction that is sufficient to allow it to examine further, for purposes of ruling on the motions to dismiss, the claims against the sureties.

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction only to district courts, excluding the Court of International Trade.

Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Insurance · filed 2012-02-07

Therefore, the Court of International Trade is not a “district court” and cannot benefit from § 1367.

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction to district courts but does not extend that grant to the Court of International Trade.

Pat Huval Restaurant & Oyster Bar, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission · filed 2012-03-01

Nor may we exercise jurisdiction over this proposed claim by invoking supplemental jurisdiction as granted by Congress to the district courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, or common law pendant or ancillary jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction only to district courts, not to the Court of International Trade.

Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States · filed 2013-03-06(a)

The court rejects plaintiff’s argument on subject matter jurisdiction. “Some statutory grant of authority is required” for this Court to entertain a direct claim by one private party against another, and this Court lacks statutory supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which is limited to the district courts.

Section 1367(a) supplies no original subject matter jurisdiction and cannot alone support removal of a state court action.

Brown v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1997-02-24(a)

Put simply, supplemental jurisdiction “is not a source of original subject-matter jurisdiction”; therefore, § 1367 cannot constitute the sole basis for removal.

Section 1367(a) does not independently authorize removal of a state-court action for consolidation with a related federal action.

In Re Estate of Tabas · filed 1995-03-07(a)

The statute is not, however, an independent source of removal jurisdiction.

Section 1367 supplies supplemental jurisdiction over related claims within one action, but does not provide original jurisdiction over a separate related suit or support its removal from state court.

Sebring Homes Corp. v. T.R. Arnold & Associates, Inc. · filed 1995-12-18

More importantly, the denial of the motion to add Arnold as a third-party defendant in the related case foreclosed the possibility that the plaintiffs’ claims in this action could be based on supplemental jurisdiction, because the claims are now part of a separate suit, and a removal petition may not base subject matter jurisdiction on the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits federal courts to hear state claims only in a case properly before them and does not independently supply a basis for removal.

Holloway v. Gaylord Chemical · filed 1996-03-26

Supplemental jurisdiction grants federal district courts the power to hear state claims in a case properly before the federal court. ... Even crediting such a dubious suggestion, however, the Court has already held that the original suits do not implicate a federal question. Thus, the defendants’ contentions of supplemental jurisdiction must fail.

Section 1367(a) does not supply original jurisdiction for removal of a state-court action, even if its claims relate to a separate federal action.

Ahearn v. Charter Township of Bloomfield · filed 1996-11-12(a)

Without proper removal, a state-court action does not belong in federal court in the first place, and it is wrong even to consider supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not independently supply original jurisdiction to remove a state court action, even when a related federal action is pending.

George v. Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating Ltd. Partnership · filed 1997-03-31(a)

Because the defendants have failed to find a federal claim in the state court petition itself and because defendants’ removal petition may not base subject matter jurisdiction on the supplemental jurisdiction statute, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1367(a) does not permit removal of a state action lacking independent original jurisdiction merely because it is related to a separate pending federal action.

Frankenberg v. Superior Distributors, Inc. · filed 1997-04-07(a)

May a plaintiff in a federal diversity action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama remove a state action pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, a state forum located in the Southern District of Mississippi, on the basis that supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367? Because I agree with those courts that have decided this question in the negative, it is determined that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims filed by Wet Set in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi.

Section 1367 does not independently authorize removal of a state-court action containing no federal claims.

Briddelle v. T & J FOODS, INC. · filed 1998-09-28

My research discloses that there is no authority for the proposition that the supplemental jurisdiction statute might serve as a stand-alone basis for the removal of an action filed in state court which contains no federal claims, and the defendants have cited none.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims within an action already under original federal jurisdiction, but does not independently authorize removal of a separate, related state action.

Keene v. Auto Owners Insurance · filed 1999-11-17(a)

For the foregoing reasons, the court holds that the supplemental jurisdiction statute is not an independent source of removal jurisdiction and therefore does not empower a defendant to remove an otherwise unremovable case for consolidation with a related federal action.

Section 1367(a) does not independently permit removal of a state-court proceeding that does not itself fall within a federal district court’s original jurisdiction.

In Re Texas · filed 2000-08-15(a)

As the Court noted above, the instant Rule 202 proceeding does not itself fall within the original jurisdiction of the district courts; the supplemental jurisdiction statute, therefore, cannot recharacterize it.

Section 1367(a) does not independently authorize removal of a state court action merely because it is related to a separate federal action.

McClelland v. Longhitano · filed 2001-04-16(a)

Although Defendants’ approach does have the benefit of efficiency and avoids the possibility of inconsistent adjudications of similar, if not identical, issues, their argument incorrectly attempts to turn 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) into an independent source of removal jurisdiction.