# Louise B. v. Aldo Coluatti, Etc. Appeal of Louise B. And Janie J. And Josephine R

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 28, 1979 · 606 F.2d 392

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466107

## Case

- **Full name:** LOUISE B. Et Al. v. Aldo COLUATTI, Etc., Et Al. Appeal of LOUISE B. and Janie J. and Josephine R.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 28, 1979
- **Citations:** 606 F.2d 392; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11514
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rosenn
- **Judges:** Higginbotham, Adams, Rosenn, Higgin-Botham
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466107

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the exercise of pendent jurisdiction is proper over a state statutory breach of confidentiality claim, cognizable in state court

## Opinion text

ROSENN, Circuit Judge,
concurring
I concur in the result reached by the majority and its holding that plaintiffs’ statutory breach of confidentiality claim arises under federal law for purposes of section 1331 jurisdiction. I write separately only to express my belief that it is unnecessary on this record to inquire into the issue of pendent jurisdiction and establish it as an alternative jurisdictional basis for this lawsuit.
The central claim in this case is that the defendants have violated the plaintiffs’ statutory rights by breaching confidentiality regulations surrounding the disclosure of public assistance information. Judge Higginbotham correctly determines that this claim meets the tests laid down by this court in Lindy v. Lynn, 501 F.2d 1367 (3d Cir. 1974), for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (a). Majority Opinion, Part II A. However, having determined that plaintiffs are properly in federal court under section 1331, he proceeds in Part II B of his opinion to elucidate a pendent jurisdictional alternative to federal question jurisdiction. Judge Higginbotham sustains the plaintiffs’ argument that the statutory breach of confidentiality claim may be pended to a not insubstantial constitutional privacy claim. Majority Opinion at 399. Although his analysis of pendent jurisdiction may be correct, I fail to see its relevance once federal question jurisdiction is established over the statutory claim.
*403 If the plaintiffs’ statutory breach of confidentiality claim arises under federal law for purposes of section 1331 jurisdiction, then the only instance in which it would be necessary for the district court to exercise pendent jurisdiction over it would be if the federal claim failed to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement of $10,000 in controversy. The present case is an appeal from a grant of a directed verdict in favor of the defendants in which they chose not to put in issue any question concerning the jurisdictional amount. Majority Opinion at 397 n.7. Hence, we must assume for purposes of this appeal that there is no impediment to the plaintiffs pursuing their federal claim under section 1331. If so, then it is unnecessary for the court to examine the substantiality of the constitutional privacy claim for jurisdictional purposes in order to pend the statutory claim to it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466107. Public record. Not legal advice.