Sharon Swarsensky Bilow, Cross-Appellee v. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that while the district court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, it was not required to do so
• holding that while the district court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, it was not required to do so
• holding that while the district court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, it was not required to do so
• stating that “an ERISA plan is a condition precedent to an ERISA retaliation claim”
• plaintiff “needs more than a coincidence of timing to create a reasonable inference of retaliation”
• “The mere fact that one event preceded another does nothing to prove that the first event caused the second.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).