28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c)(4) permits a discretionary remand of pendent claims when in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. "Compelling reasons" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C.S. § (c)(4) are those that lead a court to conclude that declining jurisdiction best accommodates the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
The employee filed federal and state law claims for employment discrimination against his employer and related individuals. The employer removed the action to federal court. When the district court remanded the pendent state law claims, the employer requested a writ of mandamus.
Was it proper for the district court to remanded the pendent state law claims?
The court granted the writ, holding that the district court clearly erred in not maintaining supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claims. The district court also erred when it relied on a basis for remanding pendent state claims that was not permitted by statute and failed to articulate its reasons for remanding the pendent claims. The district court did not rely on the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c), in making its decision and failed to articulate how the circumstances that warranted declining jurisdiction were exceptional and compelling under the statute. The district court clearly erred by articulating a basis for declining jurisdiction that was unauthorized by statute. The district court's errors were significant and the question was an important question of first impression. Petitioners faced unrectifiable prejudice if not granted the writ and there were no other adequate means for relief.