Joan Harp et al v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. et al

Filing 64

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ORDER REMANDING STATE LAW CLAIMS (dkt. 57, filed April 26, 2015) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Because plaintiffs have not established that reconsideration of the Court's November 25, 2014 order denying plaintiffs' motion for remand is proper under Local Rule 7-18, the Court DENIES plaintiffs' motion-or, more accurately, plaintiffs' proposed order-accordingly. (bp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-07704-CAS(Ex)

Title

JOAN HARP ET AL. V. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC.
ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 13, 2015

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT PLAINTIFFS’
PROPOSED ORDER REMANDING STATE LAW CLAIMS (dkt.
57, filed April 26, 2015)

Plaintiffs initially filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on
December 28, 2012. Defendants removed plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”)
to this Court on October 3, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). Dkt. 1. The SAC
asserts twelve claims—eleven state law claims and one federal claim. By order dated
November 25, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to state
court, but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ eleven state law
claims. Dkt. 28.
On April 26, 2015, plaintiffs filed a proposed order remanding their eleven state
law claims. Dkt. 57. Defendants filed objections to this proposed order on April 28,
2015. Dkt. 58. Both plaintiffs’ proposed order and defendants’ objections thereto were
bereft of legal authority to support their respective positions. In light of this, the Court
ordered the parties to submit briefing setting forth such legal authority, noting that it
appeared that plaintiffs’ proper course of action is to move this Court to dismiss their
state law claims without prejudice. Dkt. 61 (May 4, 2015 order). The Court received the
parties’ supplemental briefing on May 11, 2015. Dkts. 62, 63.
As plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing clarifies, plaintiffs’ proposed order remanding
the eleven state law claims effectively constitutes a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s November 25, 2014 order denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Local Rule
7–18 sets forth the bases upon which the Court may reconsider its decision on any
motion:
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-07704-CAS(Ex)

May 13, 2015

Title

JOAN HARP ET AL. V. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC.
ET AL.
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made
only on the grounds of: (a) a material difference in fact or law from that
presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration
at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a
change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest
showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before
such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any
oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original
motion.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–18.
Here, plaintiffs do not set forth any of the appropriate grounds for reconsidering an
order pursuant to Local Rule 7-18. Rather, plaintiffs assert that the eleven state claims
must be remanded pursuant to the abstention doctrine articulated in Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971). Pursuant to Younger and its progeny, federal courts are prohibited
from granting relief that interferes with certain pending state proceedings. Under this
doctrine, a federal court must abstain if four requirements are met: (1) state court
proceedings are pending when the federal action is filed; (2) the state proceedings
implicate important state interests; (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate
opportunity to raise the federal claims; and (4) the policies behind Younger are
implicated by the actions requested of the federal court. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d
965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143,
1149 (9th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiffs appear to contend that removing an action from state court creates a
pending state proceeding with which the removed action, now in federal court, conflicts.
Pls.’ Supp. Br. at 3 (“There was a pending State case for two years already when this case
was initially removed.”). This argument fails because “[r]emoval under 28 U.S.C. § 1441
simply does not leave behind a pending state proceeding that would permit Younger
abstention.” Village of DePue, Ill. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 537 F.3d 775, 783 (7th Cir.
2008) (citing, inter alia, Kirkride v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729, 734 (9th Cir. 1991)
(refusing to abstain on the basis of the Colorado River abstention doctrine from hearing a
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-07704-CAS(Ex)

May 13, 2015

Title

JOAN HARP ET AL. V. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC.
ET AL.

diversity suit merely because it had been removed from state court)); accord IndyMac
Venture, LLC v. Silver Creek Crossing, LLC, 2009 WL 3698513, at *2 (W.D. Wash.
Nov. 3, 2009) (citing Village of Depue and concluding that removal did not create a
pending state action). Absent a pending state action, Younger abstention is inappropriate.

Because plaintiffs have not established that reconsideration of the Court’s
November 25, 2014 order denying plaintiffs’ motion for remand is proper under Local
Rule 7-18, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion—or, more accurately, plaintiffs’
proposed order—accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3