Daenesha Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank N A et al

Filing 14

IN CHAMBERS- COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. Plaintiff has dismissed the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court further exercises its discretion to remand the action. See Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int'l Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9t h Cir. 1991) ("[A] district court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court when none of the federal claims are remaining."). The Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. NC059660. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8 ) and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Docket No. 11 ) are denied as moot. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (jloz)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-7613 PA (FFMx)

Title

Daenesha Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 17, 2014

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Julieta Lozano

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS – COURT ORDER

Plaintiff Daenesha Caldwell (“Plaintiff”) has filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Plaintiff’s FAC omits the civil rights claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was the sole basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Court
has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Once supplemental jurisdiction has been established under § 1367(a), a district court “can decline to
assert supplemental jurisdiction over a pendant claim only if one of the four categories specifically
enumerated in section 1367(c) applies.” Exec. Software v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.,
24 F.3d 1545, 1555–56 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under
§ 1367(c) if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially
predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the
district court dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional
circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”
Here, Plaintiff has dismissed the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court further exercises its discretion to remand the action. See
Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003); Harrell v. 20th
Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] district court has discretion to remand a
properly removed case to state court when none of the federal claims are remaining.”). The Court
remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. NC059660. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Docket No. 11) are
denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1