28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing state-law accessibility claims when a plaintiff inadequately responds to an order to show cause concerning retention of those claims.

In Sun Kil v. Unique Nails and Spa, Inc. · filed 2020-02-07(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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after granting default judgment on the claim within its original jurisdiction.

Kinman v. Burnop · filed 2020-02-12(c)(3)

Having granted default judgment on Plaintiff’s copyright claim (over which the Court had original jurisdiction) and without addressing the merits or lack thereof of Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court, in its discretion and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant 3BF.

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

Garibay v. Green Water Gas, Inc. · filed 2020-02-14(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).

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

Whitaker v. Fox That, Inc. · filed 2020-02-14(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 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)(4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claim is being concluded and the state claims are conclusory and lack specific facts or evidence supporting an award.

Mowett v. City of Detroit · filed 2020-02-19(c)(4)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4),2 the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Mowett’s state law claims, because the federal claim is now being concluded, and the state claims were pled in conclusory fashion, without specific facts or evidence presented to support an award.

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

Perri v. ESA P Portfolio L.L.C. · filed 2020-02-21(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” 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).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to justify retaining state disability-access and related claims in light of California’s measures against abusive litigation.

Grigsby v. Hype Smoke and Vape Inc. · filed 2020-02-24(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 Persons Act claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Under Section 1367(c), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state disability-access claims if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately to an order to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Weilch v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC · filed 2020-02-24(c)

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, California’s Disabled Persons Act claim, and California’s Unfair Competition Act claim, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permit declining supplemental jurisdiction where state claims substantially predominate and differing state and federal standards create exceptional risks of jury confusion, inefficiency, inconvenience, and unfairness.

Foulks v. City of Detroit · filed 2020-02-24(c)(2), (c)(4)

For these reasons, the state claims would predominate over the § 1983 federal claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss without prejudice the state claims. ... Exceptional circumstances are present in this case because of the likelihood of jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, substantial inconvenience to the parties, and potential unfairness in an outcome that could result if Plaintiff’s state law claims were tried together with his federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law accessibility claims if the plaintiff inadequately responds to an order to justify retaining those claims.

Vasquez v. Baskin Robbins Ice Cream No 116 · filed 2020-02-25(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 over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ghadiri v. Doan Family Chiropractic · filed 2020-02-26(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 claim, and the dismissal of those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Lee v. Lauriano · filed 2020-02-28(c)

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

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims forming part of the same case or controversy as a surviving federal claim when no reason to decline jurisdiction applies.

Eng v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Public Safety · filed 2020-02-28(a), (c)

Further, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against the State Defendants because all of the claims against the State Defendants are “part of the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This Court finds that there is no reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See § 1367(c). The Summary Judgment Motion is therefore denied as to the State Defendant’s arguments concerning supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state disability-access and related claims, including declarations addressing high-frequency-litigant status.

In Sun Kil v. Hayashi · filed 2020-03-02(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, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1367(c) permits district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Vasquez v. Gold and Braid Salon · filed 2020-03-04(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 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims as a discretionary choice.

Cheek v. Lundquist · filed 2020-03-05(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims alleged by Plaintiff that may or may not be sufficiently pleaded.

A common nucleus of operative fact establishes supplemental jurisdiction but does not require a court to retain state law claims when exercising its discretion under Section 1367(c).

Lesane v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc. · filed 2020-03-06(a), (c)

At the hearing, Defendants argued in favor of exercising jurisdiction because the remaining state law claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with the dismissed federal claims. While that test is used to determine whether supplemental jurisdiction exists in the first instance, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004), it is not the test the Court uses to determine, in its discretion, whether to nonetheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under circumstances like those here.

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

Kim v. Jhorakan · filed 2020-03-09(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Williams v. Reddy Dental · filed 2020-03-09(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) permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Williams v. Cogan · filed 2020-03-09(c)

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

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

Garcia v. Kim · filed 2020-03-10(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

In Sun Kil v. K Mann Brothers, Inc. · filed 2020-03-10(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).

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

Ho v. Nick Floutsis · filed 2020-03-11(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.

Harmon v. Somerset Homes LLC · filed 2020-03-11(c)

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

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

Bouyer v. Omninet Jade, LLC · filed 2020-03-11(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, 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 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

In Sun Kil v. Michaels Stores, Inc. · filed 2020-03-11(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 supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state-law claims.

Perri v. 1760 PCH · filed 2020-03-11(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 under Section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to show cause why it should retain state-law claims.

Whitaker v. Pachanga Mexican Grill · filed 2020-03-12(c)

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

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

Whitaker v. Joyan Properties, LLC · filed 2020-03-12(c)

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

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

Garcia v. Always Best, Inc. · filed 2020-03-12(c)

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

A court may require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Kong v. Plaza Del Amo Properties, LLC · filed 2020-03-12(c)

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

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation and may require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Perri v. Avalon Equities, LLCcompany · filed 2020-03-12(c)

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

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

Garcia v. Ross Stores, Inc. · filed 2020-03-12(c)

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

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(c), a court may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Myers v. Aria Burger King, Inc. · filed 2020-03-12(c)

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

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

Lee v. De Leon · filed 2020-03-13(c)

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

A court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may require the plaintiff to show cause why that jurisdiction should be exercised.

Williams v. Cane · filed 2020-03-16(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).

Under § 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state law claims.

Estrada v. 625 W. La Cadena LLC · filed 2020-03-16(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.

Under section 1367(c), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state disability-access and negligence claims if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately to an order to show cause.

Cho v. Leng · filed 2020-03-17(c)

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, Disabled Persons Act claim, Health & Safety Code claim, and negligence claim and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

A court may order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Dorsey v. California Fish Grill, Inc. · filed 2020-03-17(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).

Under Section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state law claims.

Walker v. Hernandez · filed 2020-03-18(c)

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

A court may require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Cabrera v. The TJX Companies, Inc. · filed 2020-03-18(c)

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

A court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise that jurisdiction.

Bouyer v. 15239 PARTHENIA, LLC · filed 2020-03-18(c)

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

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

Koo v. L.A. Santa Rosa Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2020-03-19(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 decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when exercising it would not promote judicial economy or convenience and would likely cause jury confusion.

Gerber v. Herskovitz · filed 2020-03-19(c)

Invoking supplemental jurisdiction would not promote judicial economy or the convenience of the parties, and it would likely lead to jury confusion. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Gstettenbauer v. Wankel Way Associates, LLC · filed 2020-03-21(c)

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

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

Garcia v. Chen · filed 2020-03-24(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 supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state law claims.

Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. · filed 2020-03-24(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.

Whitaker v. Intelligentsia Coffee Inc. · filed 2020-03-24(c)

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

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

Bouyer v. Midland Pacific, LLC · filed 2020-03-24(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)(2) and (c)(4) permit declining supplemental jurisdiction when numerous, wide-ranging state claims substantially predominate over discrete federal claims and their retention risks complicated proceedings and jury confusion.

Doe MC-9 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2), (c)(4)

If state claims are retained, their number and wide- ranging nature will allow them to substantially predominate over the relatively discrete federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Further, retaining the state claims risks complicating the proceedings and confusing the jury, creating compelling reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and (c)(4).

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

Myers v. Pang · filed 2020-03-26(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims accompanying a federal disability-access claim in light of fairness and comity concerns.

Lee v. Monetary Management of California, Inc. · filed 2020-03-30(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, Unfair Competition Act, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Scherer v. Mattress World II, Inc. · filed 2020-03-31(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)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after granting summary judgment on the sole federal claim.

Charlie J. Barber, II v. Cellco Partnership · filed 2020-04-08(c)(3)

Barber argues that it was error for the district court to dismiss his state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrage after granting summary judgment on his federal claim. But he does not offer any argument or case law to support his position that the district court abused its discretion. And, reviewing the district court’s order, we find no grounds for ruling that the district court abused its ample discretion in failing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Bouyer v. MSB Investment Group, LLC · filed 2020-04-08(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 district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Vo v. Choi · filed 2020-04-08(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Sharkany v. Bryce · filed 2020-04-08(c)(3)

To the extent he asserts a state law claim of assault, the Court has granted the motion for summary judgment on all federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lee v. Ok Ja Lee · filed 2020-04-09(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.

Langer v. Tran · filed 2020-04-09(c)

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

A court may require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and may decline jurisdiction if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately.

Weilch v. Abdullatif · filed 2020-04-13(c)

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 23, 2020. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, Disabled Persons Act claim, Unfair Competition Act claim, and Negligence claim, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

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

Rutherford v. Edinger Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-04-14(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Red Mountain Asset Fund I, LLC · filed 2020-04-14(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Harbor Place Shopping Center, LLC · filed 2020-04-14(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Langer v. Rivera · filed 2020-04-15(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 even when it exists, considering the circumstances of the case, the nature and governing law of the state claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Langer v. Giers · filed 2020-04-15(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Langer v. Lescher-Stockon Properties LLC · filed 2020-04-16(c)

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

A court may require a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state-law claims.

Lindsay v. Kator · filed 2020-04-16(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 court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Kim v. Song Hak, Inc. · filed 2020-04-16(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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after granting summary judgment on the sole federal claim.

Gammage v. City of San Francisco · filed 2020-04-17(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on Gammage’s sole federal claim, the Court, in its 13 discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. A 14 district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over 15 which it has original jurisdiction.

Under Section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Hairon Chow · filed 2020-04-20(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 to require a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state-law claims.

Fernandez v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. · filed 2020-04-20(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 to require a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims should be exercised.

Langer v. La Reina Properties, LP · filed 2020-04-20(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 discretionary retention of state-law claims even if federal claims have been abandoned, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Corrales v. AJMM Trucking Corp. · filed 2020-04-20(c)

Even if Plaintiff had abandoned the FLSA claims, the Court may still retain supplemental jurisdiction. Retaining supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances is discretionary. ... The Court’s discretionary decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction is guided by four factors: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Id. In this case, the first three factors strongly favor retaining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over claims that substantially outweigh the claims asserted in a prior related federal action.

Farmer v. Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C. · filed 2020-04-20(c)(2)

However, even if there were a valid basis for supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise such jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), given the degree to which the claims presented in the instant action so substantially outweigh the claims previously asserted in the dismissed prior action before Judge Daniels.

Section 1367(c) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when the state claims raise no novel or complex issues and do not substantially predominate, the federal claim survives, and no exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline.

REVZIP, LLC v. MCDONNELL · filed 2020-04-21(c)

Section 1367(c)(1) is analogous to Burford and therefore inappropriate; the state law claims do not “substantially predominate” over the DTSA claim, nor has the Court dismissed the DTSA claim, making Sections 1367(c)(1) and (2) improper bases; and, finally, as Section 1367(c)(4) is similar to both Younger and Colorado River, declining to exercise jurisdiction would be similarly inappropriate for the reasons discussed, infra.

A concurrent state-court action that will be stayed during the federal action does not, without exceptional circumstances, justify declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4).

Kennedy v. Palmetto Health Tuomey · filed 2020-04-22(c)(4)

Moving Defendants have failed to provide exceptional circumstances to justify this Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Further, Moving Defendants would not be required to defend this action on two fronts. Kennedy has agreed to stay the state-court action during the pendency of the federal action.

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

Bouyer v. Shelton · filed 2020-04-23(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.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after disposing of all federal claims.

Raeburn v. Gibson · filed 2020-04-24(c)(3)

Only state law claims remain. And the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate or joint trial presents exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons, including jury confusion, inefficiency, inconvenience, and potential unfairness from differing immunity and damages standards.

Carter v. Klenner · filed 2020-04-24(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claims with his federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claims would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

Walker v. Pacheco · filed 2020-04-27(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 cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Delamo Liq, Inc. · filed 2020-04-27(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).

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

Bouyer v. Hroundas · filed 2020-04-28(c)

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

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

Cabrera v. Pacific Sunwear Stores LLC · filed 2020-04-28(c)

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

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

Rutherford v. Patel · filed 2020-05-01(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 showing on whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bouyer v. MBZ-1 Properties, LLC · filed 2020-05-01(c)

The Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Bouyer v. Mission Hills Storage Owner, LLC · filed 2020-05-01(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances supply other compelling reasons.

Filardi v. Duckett-Wilson Development Company · filed 2020-05-04(c)

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

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise discretion to retain a related state law claim when a ruling on the federal claim could directly affect it.

Kelly v. Haslam · filed 2020-05-04

If this Court were to find the Act unconstitutional, that finding would have a direct effect on whether the TBI should remove him from the registry. Therefore, given the Court’s “broad discretion,” Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground is DENIED at this time.

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

Lee v. Kimmies Coffee Cup, Inc. · filed 2020-05-05(c)

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

Section 1367 allows a court to defer its decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims until motion practice on the federal claims is complete.

Smith v. City of Grand Island · filed 2020-05-05

At this time, the court will not dismiss any state-law claims Plaintiff might have against Defendants Elliott, Roehrich, Brooks, and Rodriguez in their individual capacities pending motion practice involving Plaintiff’s federal claims, after which the court may or may not choose to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Maldonado v. World Delight, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06(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 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 Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to reserve its decision on supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while it remains unclear whether any federal claim can proceed.

Griffin-Robinson v. Salov · filed 2020-05-06(c)(3)

Because it is not clear whether Plaintiff can state any federal claims, the Court reserves judgment at this time on whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over potential 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.

Bouyer v. Sherman Oaks First Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-05-14(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.

Frazier v. Fresh and Meaty Burgers · filed 2020-05-15(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).

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

Rhambo v. Arcadia Pancakes, Inc. · filed 2020-05-15(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 related state-law claim, even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Pier v. 1150 So. Bristol, Inc. · filed 2020-05-18(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 after considering the circumstances of the case, the state-law claim, governing state law, and its relationship to the federal claim.

Pier v. Bristol Quest LLC · filed 2020-05-18(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.

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

Holland v. Jamie In Jeong Moon · filed 2020-05-19(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.

Hernandez v. Merritts Garden Center · filed 2020-05-19(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.”

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

SUSAN LEE v. SAAD & SHALBAI STAR, INC. · filed 2020-05-21(c)

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

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

Myers v. Jakes Liquor 2, Inc. · filed 2020-05-21(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” 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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Allison v. Thrifty Oil Co. · filed 2020-05-21(c)

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

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

BRYANT v. EUROSTAR, INC. · filed 2020-05-22(c)

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

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. Ibrahim · filed 2020-05-26(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Neal v. Hout · filed 2020-05-27(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 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.

Bouyer v. Sertner · filed 2020-05-27(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Bouyer v. Mushmel · filed 2020-05-27(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. 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.

Hernandez v. Younan · filed 2020-05-28(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) allows a court to require a showing before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hernandez v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. · filed 2020-06-02(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’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 related state-law claims.

Bryant v. Uz Qazi Group Inc. · filed 2020-06-02(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, 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 require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jin Lee v. Solo Source, Inc. · filed 2020-06-02(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’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Carbine v. MMMG LLC · filed 2020-06-02(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Back v. Temple Petroleum Inc. · filed 2020-06-05(c)

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

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

Langer v. Choi Investment, LLC · filed 2020-06-08(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, 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.

Vogel v. Narguizian · filed 2020-06-09(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Rutherford v. Palanjian · filed 2020-06-10(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 cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Hernandez v. Osorio · filed 2020-06-10(c)

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

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

KOO v. ANGUS MEAT MARKET, INC. · filed 2020-06-10(c)

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

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

Burke v. Stanton · filed 2020-06-11(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. World Smoke Shop, Inc. · filed 2020-06-16(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, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Garcia v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. · filed 2020-06-16(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 a state-law claim.

Bouyer v. Latino Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-06-17(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 a state-law claim in light of fairness and comity concerns.

Marquez v. Alpha Beta Company · filed 2020-06-17(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 require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Rutherford v. Airport Gateway Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-06-17(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 require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Marquez v. Ho Jin Park · filed 2020-06-18(c)

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

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may order the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise that jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Langer v. Rosewood Investment Partners Fund, LLC · filed 2020-06-18(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’ 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.

Grigsby v. PT51, Inc. · filed 2020-06-19(c)

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

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

Langer v. Glentree, LLC · filed 2020-06-19(c)

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

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

Langer v. Merona Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2020-06-19(c)

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

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

Gonzalez v. B and G Khinda, Inc. · filed 2020-06-23(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 and any other state law claims 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.

Frazier v. Kounis · filed 2020-06-23(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 and any other state law claims 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 related state-law claim.

Fernandez v. The Quad at Whittier, LLC · filed 2020-06-23(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 court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim.

Marquez v. Genuine Parts Company · filed 2020-06-23(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 court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Uriarte-Limon v. EP Properties, LLC · filed 2020-06-23(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 court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Rutherford v. IProperty Development LLC · filed 2020-06-24(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.

Marquez v. Grapevine Restaurant LLC · filed 2020-06-24(c)

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

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

Back v. Ocha Classic Corporation · filed 2020-06-25(c)

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

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists, taking account of the nature of the state-law claim and governing state law.

Suzanne Na Pier v.North Coast Business Park, A California Limited Partnership · filed 2020-06-26(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Garcia v. Rodriguez · filed 2020-06-26(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) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists over a related state-law claim.

Langer v. Riedman · filed 2020-06-26(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) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Wilcox v. Buena Park Wine and Spirit, Inc. · filed 2020-06-26(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Romero v. Hsu · filed 2020-06-26(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.

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

Zarian v. Business Center Builders · filed 2020-06-26(c)

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

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

Rutherford v. ABH1, LLC · filed 2020-06-29(c)

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

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

Rutherford v. Red Mountain Asset Fund I, LLC · filed 2020-06-30(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.

Perri v. 843 West Arrow Highway, LLC · filed 2020-07-01(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 state law claims, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Mageno v. TC1 Beverly, LLC · filed 2020-07-01(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, 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 explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while the court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Fernandez v. Sanchez · filed 2020-07-01(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, 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 a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Choi · filed 2020-07-02(c)

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