Community National v. Kelleher
Case Date: 03/16/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-2181
|
March 16, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 93-2181 COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., Plaintiff, Appellees, v. CENTERPOINT BANK, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees, ________________ REGINA M. KELLEHER, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant. __________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ___________________ Before Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ___________________ Regina M. Kelleher on brief pro se. __________________ Martha V. Gordon, Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau & Gordon on brief ________________ ______ ______ _______ ______ for appellee. __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. Plaintiff/appellant Regina M. ____________ Kelleher, appeals, pro se, the dismissal of her second amended civil complaint by the district court. The complaint alleges a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, and a pendent state law claim for tortious interference with business relations. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff lacks standing to assert a RICO claim. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record below and affirm for essentially the reasons stated in the district court's order. We add that although the district court did not specifically address the pendent state claim in its order, the court's blanket dismissal seemingly encompasses all claims in the second amended complaint. The district court appropriately dismissed the pendent claim without reaching the merits. As the Supreme Court has held, "when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages, and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice." Carnegie-Mellon _______________ Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); see also United _____ ______ ________ ______ Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). ____________ _____ Affirmed. ________ -2- |