Connection lost
Server error
EXECUTIVE SOFTWARE v. U.S. DIST. COURT Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: After a case with federal and state claims was removed to federal court, the district court remanded the state claims without explanation. The Ninth Circuit held that a court’s discretion to remand is strictly limited to the specific reasons listed in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Legal Significance: This case established that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides the exclusive grounds for a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, replacing the more flexible common-law discretion previously afforded under United Mine Workers v. Gibbs.
EXECUTIVE SOFTWARE v. U.S. DIST. COURT Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Donna Page filed a complaint in California state court against her employer, Executive Software, alleging federal claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alongside several state-law claims, including discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The claims arose from an alleged workplace requirement to study Scientology. The defendants removed the action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. The district court, sua sponte, issued an order to show cause why the state-law claims should not be remanded. The order indicated that the court’s discretion to retain the claims was governed by the factors in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and that it did not interpret the new supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as restricting that discretion. Subsequently, the district court remanded the three state-law claims to state court without providing any reasons for its decision. The defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, arguing the district court misapplied § 1367.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provide the exclusive framework for a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, thereby requiring the court to articulate a reason for remand that falls within one of the statute’s four enumerated categories?
Yes. The court granted the writ of mandamus and vacated the remand Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provide the exclusive framework for a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, thereby requiring the court to articulate a reason for remand that falls within one of the statute’s four enumerated categories?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational circuit court decision interpreting 28 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Legal Rule
A district court's authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction is governed exclusively by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididun
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit conducted a detailed analysis of the transition from the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incid
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides the exclusive grounds for a district