Opinion ID: 3012378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The district court initially had federal question subject matter jurisdiction in this action due to the RICO allegations against all defendants but Bayer. Given the common nucleus of operative facts, there is no question that the state law claims against Bayer were properly before the court under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) as long as the federal claims against the other defendants remained. The Lakens voluntarily dismissed the federal claims against several defendants and the district court entered default judgment against another. Eventually, Bayer was the only remaining defendant. Bayer asserts that because the Lakens brought only state law claims against him, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment against him when he was the only defendant. [W]here the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780,788 (3d Cir. 1995). We conclude that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties were all served by the district court retaining jurisdiction of this case. The case had been in th district court since 1997. Requiring the parties to start over in state court would be inconvenient as well as a waste of judicial resources. The district court properly exercised jurisdiction to hear this case.