Henry

facts and thus are part of the same case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See, e.g., Nalan v. Access Finance, Inc., 2020 WL 6270945, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2020); Koumarian v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 2008 WL 5120053, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2008). Nor does the case present compelling reasons to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See, e.g., id. at *3–4; Nalan, 2020 WL 6270945, at *5–6. For example, Henry suggests that allowing counterclaims like these will chill plaintiffs from asserting rights under statutes like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. But if the counterclaims were dismissed, Chase would remain free to assert them in a separate state court action, and litigating two separate actions would impose an even greater burden and expense on Henry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 Koo.

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge