finding supplemental jurisdiction improper where “plaintiffs … identified no links between [the core statutory claim and challenges to other sections of the statute] so close as to bring their attacks on the latter squarely within the ‘same case or controversy,’” and there was “no doubt” that plaintiffs’ “avalanche of [ancillary] claims 6 predominates over the” claims subject to review by a three-judge court
How later courts described this case
- finding supplemental jurisdiction improper where “plaintiffs … identified no links between [the core statutory claim and challenges to other sections of the statute] so close as to bring their attacks on the latter squarely within the ‘same case or controversy,’” and there was “no doubt” that plaintiffs’ “avalanche of [ancillary] claims 6 predominates over the” claims subject to review by a three-judge court
- assuming without deciding that § 1367 applies to three-judge courts, but expressing uncertainty
- describing § 1367(a) as a threshold inquiry but applying § 1367(c)(2) despite doubts regarding the relatedness of state to federal claims
- noting that § 1367 incorporated Gibbs test
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPORKIN, District Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result. I believe that whether a three judge statutory court established under Section 23 of the Cable Act has jurisdiction to consider certain other related claims is strictly a question of discretion.
I concur with the majority’s decision in this case to exercise this discretion by declining to consider the various pendent claims put forth by certain of the parties. I believe it is prudent for this Court to focus only on the Section 4 and 5 challenges to the Cable Act and to refer the balance of the constitutional and other claims to a traditional single judge court.