Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Leafly Holdings Inc.
-
Notice | Filed: November 06, 2023 | Entered: November 06, 2023 Leafly Holdings, Inc. et al v. New York State Office of Cannabis Management et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Northern
Notice - Other
Acknowledgment of Service from State Court re 11 Letter (egr)
-
Misc | Filed: October 25, 2023 | Entered: October 25, 2023 Leafly Holdings, Inc. et al v. New York State Office of Cannabis Management et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Northern
Letter
Letter to New York State Supreme Court, Albany County. (mab)
-
Order | Filed: October 25, 2023 | Entered: October 25, 2023 Leafly Holdings, Inc. et al v. New York State Office of Cannabis Management et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Northern
Order on Motion for TRO
TEXT ORDER: The Court finds that the Amended Petition, Dkt. No. 5 , does not contain federal claims. See 28 USC § 1331. Nor does the Amended Petition allege diversity of citizenship (or the required amount in controversy). Dkt. No. 5, at 10-19; 28 USC §1332(a). "[W]hen all federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, the balance of factors [i.e., judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity] generally favors declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims..." Tops Mkts., Inc. v. Quality Mkts., Inc., 142 F.3d 90, 103 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, the factors weigh decidedly in favor of remand. The Court may remand a case sua sponte if it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See, e.g., Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988); Tattoos by Design, Inc., v. Kowalski, 09-CV-0458, 2009 WL 3733045, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2009); Citibank, N.A. v. Swiatkoski, 395 F. Supp.2d 5, 10 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). ). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Court further denies Plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. No. 7 , as moot. SO ORDERED by U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci on 10/25/2023. (mab)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login