discussing factors allowing supplemental jurisdiction, and factors required to retain jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims
Summary of this case from Shipp v. Norton Outdoor Adver., Inc.No. 10 C 442.
April 13, 2011.
Jeffrey J. Neslund, Law Offices of Jef-frey J. Neslund, Chicago, IL, for Washington.
Michael Russell Hartigan, Patrick Halpin O'Connor, Hartigan O'Connor P.C., Chicago, IL, for Amatore, et al.
discussing factors allowing supplemental jurisdiction, and factors required to retain jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims
Summary of this case from Shipp v. Norton Outdoor Adver., Inc.discussing factors allowing supplemental jurisdiction, and factors required to retain jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims
Summary of this case from Hosea Project Movers, LLC v. Waterfront Assocs., Inc.Full title:Washington v. Amatore, et al
Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
Date published: Apr 13, 2011
Id. at 749-50. Turning to the substance of Count IV, Defendants claim that Plaintiff has offered no evidence…
Shipp v. Norton Outdoor Adver., Inc.Province v. Cleveland Press Pub. Co., 787 F.2d 1047, 1055 (6th Cir. 1986). See also generally, Fox v. Brown…