Hedges v. Musco

9 Citing briefs

  1. Otero et al v. Port Authority of New York And New Jersey et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed October 19, 2016

    Therefore, the District of New Jersey analyzes NJCRA claims “through the lens of § 1983.” Petitt v. State of Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 137 Filed 10/19/16 Page 25 of 36 PageID: 4534 22 New Jersey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35452, *11 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2011)(citing Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 121 n. 12 (3d Cir. 2000)). Similarly, the New York Constitution, in the context of free speech and free association, has been considered co-extensive with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as Defendants admit in their brief.

  2. Otero et al v. Port Authority of New York And New Jersey et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed October 5, 2016

    Therefore, the District of New Jersey analyzes NJCRA claims “through the lens of § 1983.” Petitt v. State of New Jersey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35452, *11 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2011)(citing Hedges v. Musco, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 52 of 63 PageID: 4251 48 204 F.3d 109, 121 n. 12 (3d Cir. 2000)). Similarly, the New York Constitution, in the context of free speech and free association, has been considered co-extensive with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as Defendants admit in their brief.

  3. Winner v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed September 16, 2016

    of Educ., No. 09-5964 (RBK/JS), 2011 WL 3240449, at *2 (D.N.J. July 28, 2011) (finding that “[i]n the usual case,” supplemental jurisdiction will be declined when “all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, [because] the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (“This Court has recognized that, where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendant state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

  4. Otero et al v. Port Authority of New York And New Jersey et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed August 15, 2016

    Therefore, the District of New Jersey analyzes NJCRA claims “through the lens of § 1983.” Petitt v. State of New Jersey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35452, *11 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2011)(citing Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 121 n. 12 (3d Cir. 2000)). Similarly, the New York Constitution, in the context of free speech and free association, has been considered co-extensive with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as Defendants admit in their brief.

  5. LEACH v. PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND AND JONES, LLP

    MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/15/20. 4/15/20 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. *NOT MAILED TO PLAINTIFF AND UNREP.

    Filed April 15, 2020

    “[W]here 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.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiff’s claim that she suffered emotional distress intentionally inflicted on her during her eviction in July 2019 is still well within Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524, meaning she could re-file it in state court, and no other considerations of fairness and convenience warrant keeping it in federal court. Her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress shall thus be dismissed with prejudice.

  6. Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum, Inc. et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed June 15, 2017

    ..........................................................3, 4, 8 Bright v. Westmoreland County, 380 F.3d 729 (3d Cir.2004)......................................................................................................15 Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988).................................................................................................................14 G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Elm St. Chiropractic, Ltd., 871 F. Supp. 2d 763 (N.D. Ill. 2012) .................................................................................12, 14 Grind Lap Servs., Inc. v. UBM LLC, No. 14-c -6448, 2015 WL 6955484 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2015), appeal dismissed (Mar. 17, 2016)..............................................................................................5 Friedman v. Torchmark, No. 12–cv–2837, 2013 WL 4102201, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) … ......................................................................................................................9 Hedges v. Musco, 204 F. 3d 109 (3d. Cir. 2000)...................................................................................................14 Case 5:17-cv-01643-EGS Document 13-2 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of 22 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) iii Hill v. Cosby, No. 15-cv-1658, 2016 WL 491728 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2016).....................................................4 Holmes v. Back Doctors, Ltd., 695 F. Supp. 2d 843 (S.D. Ill. 2010)........................................................................................10 Iseley v. Talaber, No. 05-cv-444, 2008 WL 906508 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2008) ....................................................8 Luminent Mortg. Capital, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 652 F. Supp. 2d 576 (E.D. Pa. 2009) .......................................................................................15 Lutz Appellate Serv., Inc. v. Curry, 859 F. Supp. 180 (E.D. Pa. 1994) ..............................................................................................8 Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 5

  7. Brice et al v. Hoffert et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed July 27, 2016

    According to the Third Circuit, “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.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). There are no considerations of judicial economy and convenience which warrant the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Attorney Defendants.

  8. Doe v. The Pennsylvania State University et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Certificate of Service

    Filed February 20, 2013

    But under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court must decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, notwithstanding their factual similarity to the underlying federal claims, “‘unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.’” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). None of those considerations would justify supplemental jurisdiction here and, accordingly, plaintiff does not even mention them at all.

  9. Greene v. Street et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

    Filed October 22, 2010

    As the dismissal of Greene’s Count I § 1983 claim will leave the Court Case 2:10-cv-04529-RB Document 17 Filed 10/22/10 Page 3 of 25 1 Where the claim over which a district court has jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendant state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so. See, e.g., Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000). At this stage of the action, none of these considerations provide sufficient justification for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction.