The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction is one of judicial discretion and is reviewed for a clear error of judgment.

The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction is one of sound judicial discretion. 879 F.2d 1066, 1071. The justification for a federal court exercising jurisdiction over state law claims “lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” 383 U.S. 715, 726.

An appellate court’s review of a decision regarding the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction will be for a “clear error of judgment.” 51 F.3d 810, 816.

Considerations of economy, convenience, and fairness direct this Court to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Grower Defendants’ brief fails to address the key considerations of economy, convenience and fairness.

In Trustees v. Desert Valley Landscape 333 F.3d 923, the 9^th Circuit held that dismissing a case in its third year of litigation after the parties “were essentially done with trial perpetration was neither fair to the parties nor an efficient use of judicial resources.” 333 F.3d 923, 926. The Trustees court stressed that even when a district court identifies the dismissal that triggers the exercise of discretion to decline jurisdiction, it must then explain how declining jurisdiction serves the objectives of economy, convenience and fairness to the parties. 333 F.3d 923, 925.

Plaintiffs originally filed this case in federal court. The docket contains over 314 documents that were filed over the past three years. The Court is familiar with the facts, the evidence, and the history of the litigation. The trial date is set for less than three months away. Plaintiffs’ state and federal law claims were stated in the original complaint; the longstanding expectation being that all would be heard together.

“A federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” 118 S.Ct. 523, 173.

At the current stage of this litigation, economy, convenience and fairness direct the Court to continue exercising jurisdiction over all claims. The Grower Defendants’ ignore the clear direction of the 9^th Circuit by failing to address these factors and suggest that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

The Court may retain jurisdiction even if Plaintiffs’ federal claims are ultimately dismissed.

The fact that the Court may dismiss Plaintiffs’ state claims does not mean they must be dismissed. 227 F.3d 1082, 1089. Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)). “The district court’s discretion should be “informed by the Gibbs values ‘of economy, fairness, and comity.’” Id. at 1001.

Plaintiffs’ FLSA and state contract claims arise out of illegal contract terms.

Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of illegal contract terms and negotiations that took place between the Defendants prior to Plaintiffs’ arrival in the United States. Plaintiffs’ claims share a common nucleus of fact, the evidence of which is known by the Defendants and their agents. All claims share witnesses and evidence: Who knew? What did they know? When did they know it? The evidence is then applied to state and federal law to determine the remedies available. Alternative state and federal theories based on the same facts are appropriate for district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over. 45 F.3d 758, 761 (citing Lentino v. Fringe Employee Plans, Inc., 611 F.2d 474, 479 (3d Cir.1979)).

Any dismissal should be without prejudice.

In the event that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’ state law claims must be dismissed without prejudice to provide Plaintiffs the opportunity to refile in state court within the 30 day tolling period allowed by 28 USC §1367(d). Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept. 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9^th Cir.1994). A dismissal without prejudice is consistent with the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims which it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over. Axess Int’l Ltd. v. Intercargo Ins. Co. 183 F.3d 935, 943-944 (9^th Cir. 1999).