Commty Initiatives v. Chase Bnk TX Natl ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50273
Summary Calendar
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, INC.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; AL MARTINEZ-FONTS;
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; DAVE GRAHAM; NORWEST
BANK EL PASO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY;
NATHAN E. CHRISTIAN,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-99-CV-375-DB
--------------------
December 14, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The defendants appeal the district court’s orders remanding
to state court the plaintiff’s removed state law claims of
tortious interference and negligence and dismissing without
prejudice the plaintiff’s federal civil conspiracy claim. The
defendants assert that the district court abused its discretion
by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims. The defendants contend that the plaintiff committed
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-50273
-2-
forum manipulation by deleting its federal claims in order to
obtain a remand and that the district court condoned such
manipulation by dismissing the plaintiff’s federal civil
conspiracy claim without prejudice.
The defendants have not challenged on appeal, and have
therefore abandoned any challenge to, the district court’s
determination that it had discretion to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s state claims
substantially predominated over its federal civil conspiracy
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The defendants have also
failed to establish that the district court’s declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims was
an abuse of discretion in light of the principles of judicial
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Batiste v.
Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226-28 (5th Cir. 1999);
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988).
Contrary to the defendants’ assertions, the record shows that the
district court did consider the forum manipulation issue. See
Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 357.
Finally, the defendants have failed to show plain legal
prejudice arising from the district court’s dismissal without
prejudice of the plaintiff’s federal civil conspiracy claim. See
Manshack v. Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 915 F.2d 172, 174 (5th
Cir. 1990). The mere prospect that the claim will be asserted in
the remanded case in state court is insufficient to establish the
required prejudice. See id. at 174-75.
No. 00-50273
-3-
AFFIRMED.