Opinion ID: 662459
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Relationship of Section 1367 to Gibbs

Text: 30 Initially, we must determine whether, as Petitioners contend, the section 1367(c) factors are the exclusive means by which supplemental jurisdiction, if permitted by sections 1367(a) and (b), can be declined, and whether the scope of those factors is narrower than the Gibbs standard. We begin our analysis, as we must, with the statute's text and structure. E.g., Mount Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1451-1453 (9th Cir.1992). 31
1. 32 On its face, section 1367 appears to make at least two changes to the Gibbs standard. First, although it retains the basic division between power and discretion, the structure of 1367 reveals a different emphasis. Gibbs stressed that courts have discretion to exercise the power conferred upon them under Article III to hear pendent state law claims. See Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139. Section 1367(a), however, appears to make supplemental jurisdiction mandatory by its language that the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1367(a) (West 1993) (emphasis added). Under the statute, if power is conferred under section 1367(a), and not prohibited by section 1367(b), 4 the district courts exercise discretion only in deciding whether to decline that jurisdiction under one of the four criteria specifically enumerated in Sec. 1367(c). These are: 33
34 (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, 35 (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or 36 (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 37 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1367(c) (West 1993). 38 We agree with a number of courts that have found this structural difference evinces an intent on the part of Congress to create a presumption that, if power exists under section 1367(a) and is not stripped by section 1367(b), supplemental jurisdiction must be asserted by a district court unless a factor specifically listed in section 1367(c) applies. See, e.g., Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, 983 F.2d 1277, 1285 n. 14 (3d Cir.1993) (The language in Sec. 1367 expressly ... states that ... federal courts shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent claims arising out of the same case or controversy and may decline to exercise jurisdiction [as provided by Sec. 1367(c) ]. (emphasis in original)); 5 LaSorella v. Penrose Saint Francis Healthcare Sys., 818 F.Supp. 1413, 1415-16 (D.Colo.1993); Godfrey v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 794 F.Supp. 1179, 1184 (D.N.H.1992) ([If] the court finds that it has the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims [it must exercise that jurisdiction] subject only to the narrow circumstances detailed by Congress.); Cedillo v. Valcar Enters. & Darling Delaware Co., 773 F.Supp. 932, 939 (N.D.Tex.1991) (If the claim is within the court's supplemental jurisdiction, the court must exercise such jurisdiction unless one of the four categorical exceptions in Sec. 1367(c) is satisfied. (emphasis added)); cf. Picard v. Bay Area Regional Transit Dist., 823 F.Supp. 1519, 1523 (N.D.Cal.1993) (conducting the two step analysis prescribed by the statute's structure). We further note that this is the view accepted by most commentators. See, e.g., 13B Wright & Miller, supra, Sec. 3567.3, at 39 (Supp.1992) (The circumstances in which a court may exercise discretion to refuse to hear a case within its supplemental jurisdiction are quite strictly defined.); John B. Oakley, Recent Changes in the Law of Federal Jurisdiction and Venue: The Judicial Improvements Acts of 1988 and 1990, 24 U.C.Davis L.Rev. 735, 766-67 (1991) (By the juxtaposition of section 1367(a) and 1367(c) Congress appears to have created a strong presumption in favor of the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.); David D. Siegel, Practice Commentary, 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1367 comment, at 235-36 (West 1993). 39 Moreover, at least one of the discretionary factors provided in the statue for declining supplemental jurisdiction is narrower than its Gibbs counterpart. Although Gibbs, as discussed above, was interpreted as permitting a district court to decline or exercise jurisdiction over pendent state law claims when to do so would be consistent with the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the catch-all provided in section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only when in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1367(c)(4) (West 1993) (emphasis added). As a result, most commentators, and the few courts that have considered the question, have concluded that section 1367(c)(4) is narrower than the Gibbs catch-all. See, e.g., LaSorella, 818 F.Supp. at 1415-17; Denis F. McLaughlin, The Federal Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute--A Constitutional and Statutory Analysis, 24 Ariz.St.L.J. 849, 977 & n. 619 (1992); Arthur D. Wolf, Codification of Supplemental Jurisdiction: Anatomy of a Legislative Proposal, 14 W.New Eng.L.Rev. 1, 25 (1993); see also Picard, 823 F.Supp. at 1527 (interpreting section 1367(c)(4) as requiring sufficiently compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction but not citing Gibbs in conducting this analysis); Lent v. Mills, 1991 WL 239944, at  6- 7, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 16512, at  20- 21 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 1991) (same); cf. Cedillo, 773 F.Supp. at 942 (suggesting that the section 1367(c) factors are narrower than Gibbs ); Rosen v. Chang, 758 F.Supp. 799, 803 n. 6 (D.R.I.1991) (noting that [o]n its face, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c) seems to indicate that a court should decline jurisdiction ... only in unusual circumstances). 6 2. 40 Other courts have come to a different conclusion. For instance, the Seventh Circuit has concluded that the new statute [was] intended to codify rather than to alter the judge-made principle[ ] of pendent ... jurisdiction. Brazinski v. AMOCO Petroleum Additives Co., 6 F.3d 1176, 1182 (7th Cir.1993) (emphasis added); see also Palmer v. Schwan's Sales Enters., Inc., 1993 WL 390053, at  1- 5, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14069, at  4- 12 (D.Kan. Sep. 27, 1993) (stating that [s]ection 1367(c) codifies the discretionary basis [identified in Gibbs ] for declining pendent jurisdiction and interpreting section 1367(c)(4) by reference to the Gibbs catch-all); cf. Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1097 n. 10 (5th Cir.1992) (It is unclear whether [section 1367] merely codifies the pendent jurisdiction doctrine or actually changes the doctrine in some fashion.); Pro-Choice Network v. Project Rescue, 828 F.Supp. 1018, 1027 n. 7 (W.D.N.Y.1993) (noting that the statute providing for supplemental jurisdiction essentially codified existing caselaw on the subject of pendent jurisdiction (alternations and internal quotations omitted)). Thus, it is necessary to examine the legislative history to determine if congressional intent is clearly expressed. See, e.g., Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158, 110 S.Ct. 997, 1001, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990); Mount Graham Red Squirrel, 954 F.2d at 1452. 41
42 Section 1367 was passed as Sec. 310 of Title III of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5113-14 (1990). The intent of Congress, apparently, was to implement the noncontroversial recommendations of the Federal Courts Study Committee, 150 Cong.Rec. H13313 (daily ed. Oct. 27, 1990) (statement of Rep. Kastenmeier), which was charged in 1988 with undertaking a complete study of the federal and state court systems, see Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-702, 120 Stat. 4642, 4644. The Federal Court Study Committee, although recommending the codification of supplemental jurisdiction, did not prepare a statute. See FCSC Report, supra, at 47-48. Rather, the statute was drafted by a number of law professors and underwent several revisions before passage. See generally Wolf, supra, at 16-20. In the end, however, section 1367(c) received only one paragraph in the House Report that accompanied the final version of the statute: 43 [Section 1367] codifies the factors that the Supreme Court has recognized as providing legitimate bases upon which a district court may decline jurisdiction over a supplemental claim. Subsection (c)(1)-(3) codifies the factors recognized as relevant under current law. Subsection (c)(4) acknowledges that occasionally there may exist other compelling reasons for a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, which the subsection does not foreclose a court from considering in exceptional circumstances. 44 H.R. No. 734, 101st. Cong., 2d Sess. 29 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6802, 6860, 6875 [hereinafter House Report]. 7 45 This paragraph has its defects. On the one hand, it states that section 1367(c) as a whole codifies the factors recognized by Gibbs and its progeny for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, but specifically separates section 1367(c)(1)-(3) from section 1367(c)(4) and thereby implies that the latter is not one recognized under current law. Thus, this passage does not contradict our conclusion that section 1367(c)(4) was not intended to restate the preexisting Gibbs standard. Indeed, the last sentence of the passage supports the conclusion that section 1367(c)(4) means precisely what it says: that outside of remands or dismissals based upon section 1367(c)(1)-(3), there must be compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances to justify not exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the most that can be said of the House Report is that, as one commentator has put it, it is misleading insofar as it characterizes the subsection (c) factors as simply a restatement of the factors discussed in Gibbs as pertinent to the district court's decision. Oakley, supra, at 767 n. 118 (emphasis added). 8 46 That section 1367(c)(4) narrows the Gibbs catch-all is also strongly supported by a comparison of the final version of section 1367(c)(4) with the version of the statute submitted by Professors Thomas Rowe, Stephen Burbank, and Thomas Mengler. In this prior version, prepared in response to the original draft of the statute which contained no catch-all, section 1367(c) read almost precisely as it does now except that subsection 1367(c)(4) provided that supplemental jurisdiction may be declined if there are other appropriate reasons, such as judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants, for declining jurisdiction. Federal Courts Study Committee Implementation and Civil Justice Report Act: Hearings on H.R. 5381 Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 722 (1991) [hereinafter Hearings]. This version of section 1367(c)(4), which ultimately was rejected, of course restated the Gibbs catch-all. The change from the Gibbs catch-all to a compelling reason standard in the final text of the statute strongly indicates that the two standards are not coextensive, but that the latter is narrower. 9 47 Finally, although it is true that Sec. 1367(a) evinces an intent to ratify and incorporate[ ] the constitutional analysis the Supreme Court made in the Gibbs case, 13B Wright & Miller, supra, Sec. 3567.3, at 39 (Supp.1992) (emphasis added), this does not require the conclusion that Congress made the same sweeping incorporation with respect to how district courts were to exercise their discretion. As discussed above, section 1367 was enacted in large measure to resurrect pendent-party jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's apparent rejection of it in Finley See supra pp. 1490-91. The Federal Courts Study Committee Report, however, evinces the broader goal of providing a firm statutory base for supplemental jurisdiction generally, see FCSC Report, supra, at 47-48, and the specific statutory structure chosen reveals a purpose to have that jurisdiction exercised unless quite specific criteria (those set forth in sections 1367(a), (b) and (c)) indicate to the contrary. 10 48 Consistent with this objective, another purpose of the Act was to cabin the discretion enjoyed by the lower courts under Gibbs to dismiss pendent state law claims. Commentators have noted that prior to the enactment of Sec. 1367(c), the vague Gibbs formula was used in a hostile manner by some district courts confronted with civil rights cases. By dismiss[ing] supplemental claims, often under the guise of efficiency and fairness, judges could force a civil rights plaintiff to pursue bifurcated proceedings. E.g., McLaughlin, supra, at 977 n. 619. This concern, in fact, was voiced by one of the principle drafters of section 1367. See Hearings, supra, at 708 (Letter of Prof. Thomas M. Mengler) (expressing trepidation at permitting courts to dismiss state law claims when they predominate because of what the courts have done in Title VII and ADEA cases). Consequently, the legislative history and purposes that animated the statute, reinforce the textual analysis. 49
1. 50 We conclude that section 1367 creates a presumption that supplemental jurisdiction should be asserted unless the specific factors enumerated in section 1367(c) are invoked, and that section 1367(c)(4) is narrower than the Gibbs catch-all. Therefore, the district court clearly erred. First, the district court stated that it did not believe that section 1367(c) altered the scope of its discretion under Gibbs and failed to recognize that section 1367(a) compelled the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction unless a section 1367(c) factor applied. Second, the court's description of the factors that it believed would justify an exercise of discretion not to entertain the state law claims included situations in which retention of the state claims [would] require[ ] the expenditure of substantial judicial time and effort. Because 1367(c)(4) narrows the Gibbs catch-all, however, reliance on this factor alone would have been impermissible. 2. 51 The fact that the district court applied the wrong legal standard would not require us necessarily to vacate the remand order if we could determine from the remand order that the factors that the court did rely upon were permissible ones. Cf. Hondo Nat'l Bank v. Gill Savs. Ass'n, 696 F.2d 1095, 1102 (5th Cir.1983). In this case, however, such a determination is infeasible, because the district court failed to provide reasons for its decision and the basis is not self evident. Accordingly, we turn to whether the other factors in the mandamus calculus indicate that the writ should issue to correct the district court's errors. 52