An abuse of discretion occurs only "when the action taken was improvident and affected the substantial rights of the parties." Goetz v.
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION SMART NOTES TRIAL
6 The manner in which a trial judge conducts a trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. 5 Lippa further contends that Judge Telesca erred when he (i) limited consideration of the equal pay claims to certain years, (ii) admitted a bar chart, (iii) misinformed the jury, (iv) gave the jury improper instructions, (v) prevented t he jury from ta king notes, and (vi) lim ited her coun sel's summa tion time. We perceive no a buse of disc retion in th at ruling. The district court declined to entertain the state claims because it believed th at the differe nt standard s of relief and requisite t ypes of proo f would result in the state claims dominating the trial and would confuse the jury. A court may decline to hear pendent claims if "state-law issues substantially predominat e, or where div ergent legal theories of r elief would likely con fuse the jury." Miller v.
"It has co nsistentl y been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right." United Mine Workers of America v. 4 Judge Telesca was within his discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdict ion over Lip pa's New Yo rk state law claims. Lippa appeals on four grounds: (i) the district court improperly dismissed her state law claims, (ii) the court made numerous procedural errors in handling the Equal Pay Act claim, (iii) the court erred when it denied her summary judgment o n her Equal P ay Act claim, a nd (iv) the co urt erred in ru ling on th e Title VII claims. Lippa essentially contended that General Motors discriminated against her by denying her equal pay for equal work and by retaliating in respons e to her formal complaint. 3 Carmen Lippa appeals from Judge Telesca's dismissal of her Title VII claims and an adverse jury verdict on her Equal Pay Act claims.
0 kommentar(er)
