Eranio v. Bradshaw Mountain Family Dental Group, P.C. et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE that Plaintiffs federal claims (Twelve and Thirteen) aredismissed with prejudice and Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 11 . Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/9/09. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(DMT, )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Bradshaw Mountain Family Dental Group,) P.C. an Arizona Professional Corporation;) David Frausto and Jessica Frausto,) ) husband and wife, ) ) Defendants. ) Erica Dawn Eranio, a single woman,

No. 09-CV-8168-PCT-PGR

ORDER

Pursuant to Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of both federal claims1 and her Motion to Remand to Yavapai County Superior Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's federal claims (Twelve and Thirteen) are dismissed with prejudice2.

When all federal claims are eliminated early in a case and only state claims remain, the district court has "a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U. S. 343, 351 (1988); see 28 U. S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, in the Ninth Circuit, "it is generally preferable for a district court to remand remaining pendent claims to state court[. ]" Harrell v. 20 Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991); see Baddie v. Berekely Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 490-91 (9th Cir. 1995); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
1

Both parties agree that should the Motion for Remand be granted, the federal claims should be dismissed with prejudice. The remaining ten claims are all state claims.
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (Doc.

DATED this 9th day of November, 2009.

-2-