Opinion ID: 2614930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the pre-statutory doctrine of pendent jurisdiction governs the federal court's dismissal of grider's state-law claims

Text: A case-law doctrine known as pendent jurisdiction, [11] which was later carried into federal legislation, [12] governs Grider's inclusion of state-law claims in his federal action. [13] Federal trial courts have discretion to hear state claims together with federal claims when both arise out of the same facts, if judicial efficiency, convenience and fairness would be served. [14] Federal courts routinely decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction when the underlying federal causes of action are dismissed before trial; [15] the state-law claims are then dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution to state tribunals. [16] This no doubt happened to Grider's pendent claims. [17] The court's explanation for allowing Grider to delay bringing a state suit for one year beyond the end of federal reviews is far too open-ended to be workable as a sound rule of our jurisprudence. Although pendent claims are often used as alternative grounds of recovery to federal claims, they are not ipso facto incapable of independent prosecution in a state court. [18] Today's all-inclusive and undifferentiated protection for every dismissal peripherally placed in the pending federal judicial process invites plaintiffs to postpone state-court refilings for the full length of federal reviews. This is so because the court makes no exception for reviews utterly unrelated to pendent claims' dismissal, nor for those instances where it is clear that an independent, mid-appeal state suit's commencement would not harm the plaintiff's prosecution of federal claims. [19]