Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Odatella v. Felician University, 18-13539 (ES) (SCM). (2020)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20200107d79 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2020
Summary: LETTER ORDER ESTHER SALAS , District Judge . Dear counsel: On October 11, 2019, plaintiff Dina Odatella ("Plaintiff") filed an informal motion to dismiss her state claims without prejudice, arguing that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 1 (D.E. No. 36). Defendant Felician University ("Defendant") opposed Plaintiff's motion (D.E. No. 38), and Plaintiff filed a reply (D.E. No. 39). On December 16, 2019, the Honorable Steven C. Mannion, Unit
More

LETTER ORDER

Dear counsel:

On October 11, 2019, plaintiff Dina Odatella ("Plaintiff") filed an informal motion to dismiss her state claims without prejudice, arguing that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.1 (D.E. No. 36). Defendant Felician University ("Defendant") opposed Plaintiff's motion (D.E. No. 38), and Plaintiff filed a reply (D.E. No. 39).

On December 16, 2019, the Honorable Steven C. Mannion, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion. (D.E. No. 40 ("R&R")). Magistrate Judge Mannion provided the parties fourteen days to file and serve objections to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2). No objections were filed.

Having reviewed the parties' submissions and Magistrate Judge Mannion's R&R, and for the reasons stated therein,

IT IS on this 6th day of January 2020,

ORDERED that this Court ADOPTS the R&R in full; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE docket entry number 40.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff's original complaint included federal claims, invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (D.E. No. 1 at 2). However, with Defendant's consent, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 2, 2019, asserting only state law claims. (D.E. No. 35). Because neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction exists over the amended complaint, and because Defendant did not agree to a stipulation of dismissal of the state claims without prejudice, Plaintiff filed an informal motion to dismiss her claims without prejudice. (See D.E. No. 36).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer