Choe v. Fordham University School of Law

Second Circuit

Choe v. Fordham University School of Law

81 F.3d 319, 1996 WL 182276

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1996

DocketNo. 1350, Docket 95-7868

StatusPublished

This text of 81 F.3d 319 (Choe v. Fordham University School of Law) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Choe v. Fordham University School of Law, 81 F.3d 319, 1996 WL 182276 (2d Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Choe appeals from a grant of summary judgment by Judge Mukasey dismissing his complaint against Fordham University School of Law and the Fordham International Law Journal. The complaint alleges a “mangling” of his student comment by the Journal's, editors so severe as to constitute a false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and a violation of Choe’s “droit moral.” It further alleges various state law torts.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, Choe v. Fordham Univ. Sch. of Law, 920 F.Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.1995).

We note that Judge Mukasey’s decision to dismiss Choe’s complaint without considering his pendent state law claims was well within his discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction have properly been dismissed. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Choe appeals from a grant of summary judgment by Judge Mukasey dismissing his complaint against Fordham University School of Law and the Fordham International Law Journal. The complaint alleges a “mangling” of his student comment by the Journal's, editors so severe as to constitute a false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and a violation of Choe’s “droit moral.” It further alleges various state law torts.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, Choe v. Fordham Univ. Sch. of Law, 920 F.Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.1995).

We note that Judge Mukasey’s decision to dismiss Choe’s complaint without considering his pendent state law claims was well within his discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction have properly been dismissed. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 F.3d 319, 1996 WL 182276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choe-v-fordham-university-school-of-law-ca2-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack