Case Name: Laurie KILPATRICK; Dantan Landess; Ellen Chauvin; Cheryl Landess, In her capacity as Executor/Administrator of the Estate of George Landess and as Personal Representative of George Landess; Michael Landess, Surviving children of George Landess, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-18
Citations: 549 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 13-30287
Parties: Laurie KILPATRICK; Dantan Landess; Ellen Chauvin; Cheryl Landess, In her capacity as Executor/Administrator of the Estate of George Landess and as Personal Representative of George Landess; Michael Landess, Surviving children of George Landess, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
Laurie KILPATRICK; Dantan Landess; Ellen Chauvin; Cheryl Landess, In her capacity as Executor/Administrator of the Estate of George Landess and as Personal Representative of George Landess; Michael Landess, Surviving children of George Landess, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30287.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 18, 2013.
Darrel James Papillion, Esq., Edward Joseph Walters, Jr., Esq., Attorney, Walters, Papillion, Thomas, Cullens, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding the remaining state-law claims to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after the dismissal of all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction. The district court found that the balance of common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weighs in favor of remand. The district court's finding is supported by the record in this case.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.