Kabealo v. Davis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• splitting state claims from federal claims \would result in a needless duplication of expense and judicial resources\
• splitting state claims from federal claims “would result in a needless duplication of expense and judicial resources”
• “The use of different counts to plead different legal theories or multiple theories of recovery does not automatically make those counts separate and independent.”
• Section 1367 “contains no express language which would permit this court to decline to exercise jurisdiction” over a properly removed federal claim.
• RICO and state law claims were not \separate and independent” under section 1441(c) because \plaintiff relie[d] on tire same recitation of facts for all counts of the complaint”.
• “This Court concludes that the phrase “matters in which State law predominates” does not authorize the remand of claims arising under federal law which are properly removed and which fall within the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).