The following excerpt is from Carter v. Cent. Pac. Mortgage Co. Inc, 2:10-cv-01246-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. 2010):
Three of the four factors do not weigh in favor of continuing the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state claims. The judicial economy factor does not weigh in favor of continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims since time has not been invested analyzing those claims. See Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 337, 338 (9th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he district court, of course, has the discretion to determine whether its investment of judicial energy justifies retention of jurisdiction or if it should more properly dismiss the claims without prejudice.") (internal citation omitted). Nor do the comity and fairness factors weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction since "[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of
Page 8
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.