UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 96-30519
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
LOUISIANA ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, by and through the New
Orleans Aviation Board, incorrectly identified
by plaintiff as New Orleans Aviation Board,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(96-CV-1338"J”)
December 10, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant City of New Orleans, by and through the New Orleans
Aviation Board, appeals the district court’s grant of Plaintiff
Louisiana Associated General Contractors’ motion to remand this
action to Louisiana state court. We affirm.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
I
Plaintiff Louisiana Associated General Contractors (“LAGC”)
filed suit against the New Orleans Aviation Board (“NOAB”) in
Louisiana state court. LAGC initially alleged that NOAB’s
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program, the Louisiana
statute under which it was allegedly established, and the
application of the DBE program and the statute to a specific public
works project violate the Louisiana Constitution, two Louisiana
statutes, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, LAGC alleged
that NOAB discriminates against non-minorities and men “in the
apportionment of public works, public works contracts, and public
works subcontracts.”
NOAB removed the suit to federal district court based on
federal question jurisdiction. LAGC then amended its complaint to
delete the federal claims; LAGC simultaneously filed a motion to
remand the case to state court. The district court granted LAGC’s
motion to remand. NOAB appeals.
II
We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s
decision to remand a case to state court. Hook v. Morrison Milling
Co., 38 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 1994).
A district court has discretion to remand pendent state law
claims after the plaintiff has dropped the federal cause of action
-2-
on which removal was originally based. Jones v. Houston Indep.
Sch. Dist., 979 F.2d 1004, 1007 (5th Cir. 1992). The discretion to
remand enables district courts to deal with cases involving pendent
claims in the manner that best serves the principles of economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the pendent
jurisdiction doctrine. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S.
343, 357, 108 S. Ct. 614, 623, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988).
A district court can consider whether the plaintiff has
engaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides whether to
remand a case. Id., 108 S. Ct. at 622. If the plaintiff has
attempted to manipulate the forum, the court should take this
behavior into account in determining whether the balance of factors
to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine supports
a remand in the case. Id., 108 S. Ct. at 622-23.
In this case, the district court observed that “[t]he fact
that [LAGC’s] amendment deleting the federal claims was for the
purpose of securing remand weighs against the motion.” However,
the court nonetheless concluded that the suit should be remanded
because the state law claims predominated over the federal claims
in the initial complaint and because the state law claims are
“novel and complex.”
NOAB argues that the district court abused its discretion in
finding that the state law claims in this case predominate and are
“novel and complex.” We find the district court’s decision well
-3-
within its discretion and in accordance with applicable law. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (supplemental jurisdiction statute).
NOAB also contends that the district court abused its
discretion in remanding the action because LAGC apparently amended
its complaint to manipulate the forum in which the suit would be
tried. However, the district court’s order reflects that it
addressed LAGC’s alleged tactic in a manner consistent with
Carnegie-Mellon, i.e., the court noted that forum manipulation
weighed against the motion, and considered it in light of the other
circumstances of the case. We do not find that the district court
abused its discretion in determining that the circumstances of this
case favored remand.
AFFIRMED.
-4-