Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1754214.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:13:23+00:00

Document:
Before: AMBRO, SMITH,1 and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Robert B. Patel, M.D. (“Patel”) and Mid-Atlantic Medical Associates, LLC, appeal two orders: the first denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint, and the second dismissing their state law claims under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). We will affirm both orders and the District Court's final judgment.
Before reaching the merits of the Magistrate Judge's denial of Appellants' motion for leave to amend their Sherman Act claim, we must determine whether the Appellants waived their right to appeal that order.
The Magistrate Judge denied Appellants' motion for leave to amend their Sherman Act claim on futility grounds but granted leave to amend in all other respects.17 The threshold issue is whether the Magistrate Judge's order is dispositive. Appellants argue that the order is dispositive of the Sherman Act claim, and, therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Magistrate Judge exceeded her authority by issuing an order rather than issuing a report and recommendation for the District Court to review.18 We disagree.
Appellants' failure to object to the Magistrate Judge's nondispositive order within 14 days in the District Court bars this Court from reaching the merits of that decision.
Appellants argue that the District Court's sua sponte dismissal without any “indication that the court below considered fully the factors for supplemental jurisdiction”28 was a deprivation of due process. We reject this argument. The fact that the District Court acted sua sponte is irrelevant to the validity of its order. The record indicates that the District Court fully considered the applicability of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.
Over a year before dismissal, the District Court warned Appellants that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims if the federal claim did not survive.29 Even though Appellants were on notice that the filing of their amended complaint without federal claims might result in dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), they did not object to the Magistrate Judge's order. After the District Court's dismissal, Appellants filed their remaining claims in state court. We do not find any factors here warranting supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants' state law claims.
Given the absence of federal claims and of any extraordinary factors warranting supplemental jurisdiction, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants' remaining state law claims.
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the Magistrate Judge's denial of Appellants' motion for leave to amend and the District Court's dismissal of Appellants' state law claims under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. App. 41; Appellants Br. 7.
3. App. 28. The state law claims include a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, breach of contract, tortious interference with a contract, and defamation. See App. 53-60.
8. 15 U.S.C. § 1.
12. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a plaintiff must appeal a magistrate judge's order by raising the objection in the district court within 14 days of the order).
14. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
15. See Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 805 F.3d 98, 104 (3d Cir. 2015) (reviewing a district court's refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for abuse of discretion); Renchenski v. Williams, 622 F.3d 315, 324-25 (3d Cir. 2010) (reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for leave to amend for abuse of discretion).
16. Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141, 148 (3d Cir. 2013).
17. App. 8. Appellants' motion was granted to remove the previously dismissed RICO and ADA claims.
18. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 877 (3d Cir. 1987) (failure to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation for disposition does not foreclose appellate review).
19. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-39.
20. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (excluding motions to amend from the list of eight dispositive motions outside the scope of a magistrate judge's authority to issue an order).
21. See Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D'Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1998).
22. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); United States v. Polishan, 336 F.3d 234, 239-40 (3d Cir. 2003).
26. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
27. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

References: § 1367
 § 1367
 § 1367
 § 1
 § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1367
 v.