Document: 484 U.S. 343 108 S.Ct. 614 98 L.Ed.2d 720 CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY, et al., Petitionersv.Maurice B. COHILL, Jr., Judge, United States District Court for the Western of Pennsylvania, al. No. 86-1021. Argued Nov. 10, 1987. Decided Jan. 20, 1988. Syllabus A husband and wife (hereinafter respondents) filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court against petitioners, husband's former employer his supervisor, alleging single federal-law age discrimination claim number state-law claims, all arising from discharge by petitioners. After petitioners removed case to Federal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), granted respondents' motion amend their delete allegations remand suit on ground that such amendment eliminated sole claim, which had provided basis removal first place. The Appeals denied petitioners' application writ mandamus. Held: federal district has discretion doctrine pendent jurisdiction upon proper determination retaining over would be inappropriate. Where, as here, claims action have been only remain, powerful reason choose not continue exercise jurisdiction. wide rather than dismiss will enable courts deal with appropriate cases involving manner best serves principles judicial economy, procedural convenience, fairness litigants, comity underlie doctrine. For example, generally preferable dismissal when statute limitations plaintiff's expired before determined it should relinquish Even applicable expired, may promote aforesaid principles, light increased expense time involved enforcing law entail. fact statute, §§ 1441-1451, explicitly authorizes two situations inapplicable this does mean Congress intended preclude remands claims. Given statute's silence negate courts' undoubted power cases, cannot read them. Indeed, 1441(c), gives discretionary either adjudicate or otherwise nonremovable "separate independent" joined removable strongly suggests decided address disposition authorized remand. statement Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 336, 96 584, 46 542, remanded specified applies no authority decline hear case, like present that, rule announced plaintiff might attempt manipulate forum deleting requesting is concern considered deciding whether remand, but hardly justifies categorical prohibition Pp. 348-357. Affirmed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, joined, post, p. 358. Walter P. DeForest, III, Pittsburgh, Pa., Allan J. Opsitnick, Verona, respondents. Justice MARSHALL Court. 1 question us properly remain. 2 * Respondents, William Carrie Boyle, commenced filing Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU) John Kordesich, Common Pleas Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. CMU Boyle's employer; Kordesich supervisor. In complaint, Boyle charged violation age-discrimination laws, wrongful discharge, breach contract, intentional infliction emotional distress, defamation, misrepresentation. He stated many same well tortious interference contractual relationship, Kordesich. claimed these alleged wrongs caused her suffer loss consortium, companionship, household services. All arose CMU's Boyle. 3 Petitioners allows defendant remove an falls within original courts.1 entire lawsuit fell jurisdiction, hence because Age Discrimination Employment Act 1967, 81 Stat. 602, amended, 29 621-634, were claim. Respondents did contest removal. 4 Six months later, respondents moved defamation request damages consortium. motion, they now believed tenable. At time, conditional court. noted eliminate argued was circumstances. 5 granting amend, remaining initially action. University, 648 F.Supp. 1318 (WD 1985). its examined any provision supported sections authorize after Under 1447(c), shall "was improvidently without jurisdiction";2 both independently providing case.3 held 1447(c) apply jurisdictionally 1441(c) although nonremovable, to, separate independent of, then 542 (1976), suggested could specific statutory authorization. noted, however, appellate decisions since approved suit. found later persuasive consequently opted 6 petition mandamus Third Circuit, divided panel petition.4 41 FEP Cases 1046 (1986). Both majority dissent agreed Court's conclusion neither nor case. majority, noting division among Circuits question, absence authorization precluded ordering countered Thermtron's admonition remanding extend doctrine, prejudice fairness, efficiency, comity, common sense well. 7 rehearing en banc vacated opinions 1888 rehearing, evenly Civ. Action 85-3619 (Nov. 24, 1986). Accordingly, issued order denying This effectively left undisturbed 8 We certiorari, 479 1083, 107 1283, 94 141 (1987), resolve split dropped out remain.5 affirm. II 9 modern stems decision Mine Workers Gibbs, 383 715, 86 1130, 16 218 (1966). Prior recognized considerations economy convenience justified recognition decide certain raising questions. See Hurn Oursler, 289 238, 243-247, 53 586, 588-90, 77 L.Ed. 1148 (1933). test determining murky, lower experienced considerable difficulty applying it.6 responded confusion, resulting hesitancy recognize establishing new yardstick brought also involves question. action, including whenever "derive nucleus operative fact" are "such [a plaintiff] ordinarily expected try them one proceeding." U.S., at 725, S.Ct., 1138. standard clarify, broaden, scope ibid. (stating prior approach, least applied courts, "unnecessarily grudging"). According "considerations litigants" support wide-ranging Id., 726, 1139. 10 Gibbs drew distinction between power. court's conflict principle promotion justice litigating parties. reason, emphasized "pendent discretion, right." Ibid. consider weigh each every stage litigation, values When balance factors indicates belongs court, early stages remain,7 dismissing prejudice. 726-727, As articulated thus flexibility, designed allow most sensibly accommodates range concerns values. 11 us, derived claim: set forth throughout litigation presents 12 crafting supports itself directly issue; option spoke dismissal. But establishes handle way accommodate further Judicial Branch shape light. Because some circumstances better animating behind giving 13 noted,8 foreclose consequence work injustice plaintiff: he timely manner, barred pressing case.9 Equally important, more easily overlooked, foreclosure States. preclusion valid undermines State's interest law. operation statutes provides potent dismiss, claims.10 14 comity. litigants prompt efficient resolution controversies based Any dismisses, remands, parties refile papers money. Moreover, reprocess procedure involve similar costs. Dismissal therefore increase analysis consequence, even taken alone, good grant 15 argue prohibits argument language Congress, silence. note situations. By failing similarly provide assert, cases. accept reasoning. do dispute limitation kind administration done so, expressly otherwise, statute. principal flaw fails specifically aspect dispose removal: just makes reference so too Yet concede, must, Congress' 17 section dealt situation if sued alone themselves removable. n. 3, supra. suits meaning American Fire & Casualty Co. Finn, 341 6, 12-14, 71 534, 539-40, 95 702 (1951) (interpreting clause). section, clearly manifests belief chooses alternative. Thus, far precluding actually authority.11 18 point out, contains opposite conclusion. Thermtron, docket overcrowded. improper. doing, several times id., 345, 590. 9, 590, ("Lower uniformly reasons controlling statute"); 351, 593 ("[W]e convinced ever carte blanche revise governing grounds seem justifiable statute"). Petitioners, again compels holding impermissible. 19 cite, viewed isolation, admittedly far-reaching, loses force response impermissible very different issue here. diversity discretionary. docket, contrast, through stating greater overcrowded ground. 344, implication statement, confirmed sense, entirely presented clear control case.12 20 plaintiffs secure use manipulative tactics. Petitioners' appears whose able regain simply Brief 18-20. concern, regardless attempted other can engaged tactics decides If forum, take behavior into account guard manipulation blanket prohibit 21 conclude enables Such our Thermtron. affirm below 22 It ordered. whom Chief REHNQUIST SCALIA join, dissenting. 23 today discovers inherent judiciary "economy, comity." Ante, 351. I believe see 342, 588, dissent. 24 (ADEA), 626(c)(1). pursuant 1441 ADEA Boyles move time. 25 six discovery, explaining proved "not tenable." Apparently, discovered failure file charge agency asserting ADEA. 626(d), 633(b). Counsel explained seeking avoid trial Tr. Oral Arg. 28-29. perceived opportunities extracting favorable settlement remanded, dockets County considerably congested 26 Boyles' motions provisions authorizing nonetheless deleted, 725-727, 1138-39, (1966), 27 petitioned Circuit. directed vacate order. concluded foreclosed reheard matter banc. An equally Carnegie-Mellon's affirmed. holds judges deleted. There holding. judge "the comity" thereby served. result inconsistent understanding precedents 30 enacted court: requires "improvidently jurisdiction," permits [the court's] jurisdiction." latter those asserted little possess courts. renders wholly superfluous contravention prevailing "should suppose enact unnecessary statutes." Jackson Kelly, 557 F.2d 735, 740 (CA10 1977) (en banc); Menasche, 348 528, 538-539, 75 513, 519-20, 99 615 (1955); Sutton States, 819 1289, 1295 (CA5 1987) (citing Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 60 1059, 84 1345 (1940)); Ziegler Coal Kleppe, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 379, 536 398, 406 (1976). 31 rejects foregoing express ante, 354. ignores origins Courts historically possessed prosecute. See, e.g., Link Wabash R. Co., 370 626, 629-631, 82 1386, 1388-89, 734 (1962). heretofore remand.1 32 we Judge exceeded "on permitted statute," namely, adjudicated quickly holding, observed "[l]ower statute." 590 Romero ITE Imperial Corp., 332 523, 526 (PR 1971); Isbrandtsen 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn., 256 68, (EDNY 1966); Davis Joyner, 240 689, 690 (EDNC 1964); Vann Jackson, 165 377, 381 1958)). reviewable notwithstanding review orders contained 1447(d), expressed skepticism "Congress 593. Nevertheless, grants virtual amorphous Congress. reconciled nonstatutory reasons. 33 difficult reconcile St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Red Cab 303 283, 58 845 (1938), appeared less jurisdictional amount. concluding status controlling, reasoned: 34 "If could, how bona fide reduce amount demand defeat defendant's supposed right subject caprice. ill founded fact, fixes remove, ought bring cause back election." 294, 35 To permit "bring election" voluntarily today, likewise . caprice." tactical weapon who interested securing merits causing become burdensome defendants accede settlement. 36 Nothing reached today. acknowledges "direc[t]" today's suggest retain And here stronger 37 peculiar treating favorably dismissed, dismissed himself. instead additional advantage third likely barred. encouraged overburdened be, described "primary guardians" rights. Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 463, 1209, 1218, 39 505 (1974). addition, afford costs delays associated one-way trip round discouraged exercising claims.2 38 incongruity invocation federal-state "comity" effect relieve limitations. 352. seems protect prove tenable" shown capable achieving saving clauses 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. 5535(a) (1982).3 Neither protected clause involuntarily own behest.4 sum, must come respectfully Section 1441(a) provides: "Except civil State defendants, embracing place where pending." provides, pertinent part: final judgment payment costs." "Whenever non-removable causes determine issues therein, or, matters appealed decision. Appeals, appeal 1447(d) bars appeals exception Compare re Romulus Community Schools, 729 431 (CA6 1984), Fox Custis, 712 (CA4 1983), Hofbauer Northwestern National Bank Rochester, 700 1197 (CA8 1983) (approving case), Cook Weber, 698 907 (CA7 Greyhound Lines, 598 883 1979) (disapproving remands). established Oursler "two distinct grounds," federal, "in action," assertions amounted "cause action." 246, test, commentators centered inherently elusive concept Shulman Jaegerman, Some Jurisdictional Limitations Procedure, 45 Yale L.J. 393, 397-410 (1936). "if well." More recently, made establish mandatory inflexibly Rosado Wyman, 397 397, 403-405, 90 1207, 1213-14, 442 (1970). recognizes usual trial, doctrine—judicial comity—will toward declining indicated usually favor "state substantially predominate, terms proof, raised, comprehensiveness remedy sought." F.2d, 439; Kaib Pennzoil 545 1267, 1271 Pa.1982). bringing knows expiration limitations, inappropriate, allege forgoing insulate himself risk combination removal, him protection appear especially attractive doubt about validity know dismisses rest unsuitable require suitable operate chill need expired. 20. identical argument. 909. solution problem satisfying. apart statute-of-limitations belong compel encourage alternative readily available. vein, argues alleviate existence while diminishing particular reverses general weighed dissent's unjustified. derives Sections recognizes, conferred overlap all. reliance misplaced reason. Paul, reduced figure "events occurring subsequent recoverable oust [diversity] 293, 592. continued 296, 593-94. cited dissent, focusing concerns, auxiliary policy consideration supporting agree legitimate serious. infra, ----. think, fairly, plausibly, necessitate logically assumed transfer another Yet, delineated transferred another. 1404(a), 1406(a), 2241; Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 21. While contends dismissals save money record assertion. think processing appreciably Furthermore, extent previously retained, part, "[i]f proceeding terminated, party commence year termination." proceedings terminated "a voluntary nonsuit, discontinuance, neglect prosecute proceeding, merits." largely availability justify limitations" 352, 9.

Category: 8