Mendoza v. Murphy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding continued exercise of jurisdiction was proper where parties had fully briefed defendants’ motion for summary judgment
• affirming retention of supplemental jurisdiction where party “expressly stated in their federal court pleadings” that supplemental jurisdiction was appropriate
• finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over state law claims where the case had been pending for well over a year, the discovery deadline had passed, and the parties had fully briefed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
• reviewing district court’s decision on supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion
• “Here, both the federal and state claims on the face of the pleadings concern the same core factual issue.”
• “Here, both the federal and state claims on the face of the pleadings concern the same core factual issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).