Cases pin-citing Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California

Cases pin-citing Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California

Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California  ·  1994  ·  11 pinpoint citations from 11 cases, 6 distinct passages.

Ploof v. Arizona, State of  ·  2023-06-15  ·  D. Arizona  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“[U]nless 26 a court properly invokes a section 1367(c) category in exercising its discretion to decline 27 to entertain pendent claims, supplemental jurisdiction must be asserted.”
Sanchez-Rivera v. United States  ·  2023-02-17  ·  S.D. California  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“[Section 1367] confers power to entertain supplemental jurisdiction in 28 mandatory terms.”
Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.  ·  2021-10-26  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“[U]nless a court 24 properly invokes a section 1367(c) category in exercising its discretion to decline to entertain 25 pendent claims, supplemental jurisdiction must be asserted.”
Favela v. Las Cruces Police Department  ·  2020-01-06  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (c)(1)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court’s identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories.”
Sinfuego v. Curry Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners  ·  2018-12-27  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
"By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (c)(1)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court's identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories."
Quiroz v. ConocoPhillips Co.  ·  2018-03-05  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
"By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (c)(1)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court's identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories."
Salazar v. San Juan Cnty. Det. Ctr.  ·  2017-10-13  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
"By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (c)(1)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court's identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories."
Gallup Med Flight, LLC v. Builders Trust of New Mexico  ·  2017-02-28  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (c)(l)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court’s identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories.”
Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department  ·  2016-12-19  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (e)(1)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court’s identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories.”
Nordwall v. PHC-LAS Cruces, Inc.  ·  2013-07-31  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (c)(1)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court’s identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories.”
Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners  ·  2012-09-30  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  pin 24 F.3d at 1545
“By codifying preexisting applications of Gibbs in subsections (c)(1)-(3), however, it is clear that Congress intended the exercise of discretion to be triggered by the court’s identification of a factual predicate that corresponds to one of the section 1367(c) categories.”