Opinion ID: 3012806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 71 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003).

Text: In view of the foregoing uncertainties about applicable state law, we conclude that failing to remand the state law issues to the state courts was not a proper exercise of discretion under the circumstances. Although at this point the parties may prefer to have the question certified to the New Jersey Supreme Court, we feel that the case should proceed in the regular fashion through the Superior Court. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“Needless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law. Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.”). We observe also that the Federal Court Study Committee concluded that, “[i]n order to minimize friction between state and federal courts, Congress should direct 5 federal courts to dismiss state law claims if these claims predominate or if they present novel or complex questions of state law . . . .” Report of the Federal Court Study Committee 47-48 (1990). Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment as to the N.J.L.A.D., and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to remand the claims under the N.J.L.A.D. to the state courts.