Juster v. Workday, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-07555
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Juster v. Workday, Inc., Judge Chen dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
Benjamin Juster’s case against Workday, Inc. and the other defendants named in the case. The FCRA claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
What happened
In Juster v. Workday, Inc., the court had already dismissed Benjamin Juster’s claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and allowed him to amend them. The court had postponed deciding what to do with his state-law claims.
Juster stated that he would not file an amended complaint for the dismissed federal claims. Because the federal claims were no longer part of the case and the lawsuit was still at an early stage, the court declined to hear the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. It ordered the Clerk to dismiss the case and enter judgment stating that the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims were dismissed with prejudice and that the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Judge Edward M. Chen issued the order on August 30, 2022, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Juster v. Workday, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-07555
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
The court had previously granted in part and deferred in part Workday and HR’s motions to dismiss. It dismissed Benjamin Juster’s claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA, but deferred a decision on his state-law claims. The court gave Juster permission to amend his FCRA claims and stated that, if he chose not to do so, it would consider whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Juster then filed a statement saying that he would not file an amended complaint concerning the dismissed FCRA claims.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. The court exercised its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction because the case was at an early stage.
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to dismiss Juster’s case. It directed the Clerk to enter final judgment stating that the FCRA claims were dismissed with prejudice and that the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court also ordered the file closed.
Judge and disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order. The order did not decide the merits of the state-law claims; it declined federal jurisdiction over them after the FCRA claims were dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.