The following excerpt is from Almenares v. Wyman, 453 F.2d 1075 (2nd Cir. 1971):
Our holding here is thus severely limited. With respect to a class action under F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), where damages
[453 F.2d 1086]
or some other relief requiring examination of collateral facts is required, it could well be an abuse of a trial court's discretion to utilize the principle of pendent jurisdiction to include class claims not otherwise assertable in a federal court, even though they arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the primary claim.15a This would certainly be true where each class member's claim is small, and the factual issues surrounding it are complex. See Snyder v. Harris, supra, 394 U.S. at 339-40, 89 S.Ct. 1053, 22 L.Ed.2d 319 (Congressional policy, at least in cases raising questions of state law, is to remit cases involving lesser amounts to the state courts).[453 F.2d 1086]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.