Filed: Aug. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-50851 _ JOHN C. GILLEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS THE BOVIARD SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (MO-98-CV-29) _ August 19, 1999 Before JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and STAGG,* District Judge. PER CURIAM:** We have reviewed the briefs and relevant portions of the record and the applicable caselaw and have heard the oral arguments of counsel,
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-50851 _ JOHN C. GILLEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS THE BOVIARD SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (MO-98-CV-29) _ August 19, 1999 Before JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and STAGG,* District Judge. PER CURIAM:** We have reviewed the briefs and relevant portions of the record and the applicable caselaw and have heard the oral arguments of counsel, ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 98-50851
_______________
JOHN C. GILLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
THE BOVIARD SUPPLY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(MO-98-CV-29)
_________________________
August 19, 1999
Before JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and STAGG,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
We have reviewed the briefs and relevant portions of the
record and the applicable caselaw and have heard the oral arguments
of counsel, and we find no reversible error. After dismissing the
completely preempted claims, the district court “either could
exercise its discretion to remand the putatively conflict-preempted
state causes of action, or continue with the remaining claims.”
Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc.,
172 F.3d 332, 338 (5th Cir.
*
District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by
designation.
** 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
1999). The court's choice to remand was within its discretion.
See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 353 (1988).
AFFIRMED.
2