In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims, the court considers the provisions of § 1367(c) as well as issues of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F.Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993).
at § 1367(c)(3)-(4). In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims, the court considers the provisions of § 1367(c) as well as issues of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F.Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993). Davis' claims for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress arise out of his arrest, the same event at issue in his federal question claims.
“In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims, the court considers the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) as well as the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Williams v. Carfrey, No. CIV.A.3:04CV0694-K, 2005 WL 701033, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2005) (quoting Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F.Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993)), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV.A.3:04CV0694-K, 2005 WL 840255 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2005). A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: (1) the state claims raise novel or complex issues of state law; (2) the state claims substantially predominate over the federal claims; (3) the federal claims have been dismissed; or (4) there are exceptional circumstances or other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
Those factors include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Amedisys, 298 F.3d at 446; see also Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F.Supp. 66, 69 (S.D.Tex.1993). The "general rule" is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when all federal claims are eliminated from a case before trial. Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir.2009).
Those factors include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Amedisys, 298 F.3d at 446;see also Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F.Supp. 66, 69 (S.D.Tex.1993). The “general rule” is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when all federal claims are eliminated from a case before trial. Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir.2009).
Where, as here, all federal claims are eliminated from a case prior to trial, the general rule is for the federal court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. See Priester v. Lowndes Cnty., 354 F.3d 414, 425 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 829 (2004); Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2002); Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F. Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993). The rule, however, is "neither mandatory nor absolute."
Those factors include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Id.; see also Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F. Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993). The "general rule" is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when all federal claims are eliminated from a case before trial. Amedisys, 298 F. 3d at 447-48 (citing Batiste v. Island Records Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 227 (5th Cir. 1999)).
In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims, the court considers the provisions of § 1367(c) as well as issues of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F.Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993). When, as in this case, all federal claims are eliminated from a case prior to trial, the general rule is for the federal court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state law claims.
Those factors include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Underwriters, 461 F.3d at 582, n. 7; see also Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F. Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993). The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if —
Consequently, a federal court must consider the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and "weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over a case brought in that court involving pendent state-law claims." Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350, 108 S.Ct. 614; accord International Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 173, 118 S.Ct. 523; Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 446 (5th Cir. 2002); Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 227 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1076 (2000); Cabrol, 106 F.3d at 110; Cinel, 15 F.3d at 1344; Jones v. Adam's Mark Hotel, 840 F. Supp. 66, 69 (S.D. Tex. 1993). When federal law claims that serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed and only state law claims grounded on supplemental jurisdiction remain, a district court has broad discretion to dismiss the state law claims.