9 Cited authorities

Hedges v. Musco
204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) Cited 874 times
Holding that District Courts "must" decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."
Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster
45 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 955 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."
Bright v. Westmoreland County
380 F.3d 729 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 133 times
Holding that a district court's adoption of a prevailing party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is not per se reversible error but explaining that the "findings of fact adopted by the court must be the result of the trial judge's independent judgment"
Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc.
540 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1976) Cited 294 times
Holding exercise of supplemental jurisdiction improper where federal claims dismissed under Rule 12(b), and the litigation had progressed to appellate level but there was no significant federal policy served by supplemental jurisdiction
University of Maryland v. Peat, Marwick, Main
996 F.2d 1534 (3d Cir. 1993) Cited 137 times
Holding that accounting firm could not be liable for performing generic financial services for an insurance company
Cooley v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
830 F.2d 469 (3d Cir. 1987) Cited 67 times
Holding that presence of letter in personnel file is insufficient to establish violation of a constitutional liberty interest
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,805 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 61,757 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 15,872 times 60 Legal Analyses
Specifying prohibited activities

Brice et al v. Hoffert et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that District Courts "must" decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."

Holding that a district court's adoption of a prevailing party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is not per se reversible error but explaining that the "findings of fact adopted by the court must be the result of the trial judge's independent judgment"

Holding exercise of supplemental jurisdiction improper where federal claims dismissed under Rule 12(b), and the litigation had progressed to appellate level but there was no significant federal policy served by supplemental jurisdiction

Holding that accounting firm could not be liable for performing generic financial services for an insurance company

Holding that presence of letter in personnel file is insufficient to establish violation of a constitutional liberty interest

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Specifying prohibited activities