Michael Aaron McGrew v. County of San Luis Obispo et al

Filing 36

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court has received a "Request for Order of Dismissal of Federal Claims" filed by plaintiff Michael Aaron McGrew, in which Plaintiff requests that his federal claims be dismissed without prejudice. In accordance with that Request, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's federal claims without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state lawclaims. The Court therefore dismisses the remaining state law claims without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), this Order acts to toll Plaintiff's statute of limitations on his state law claims for a period of thirty (30) days, unless state law provides for a longer tolling period. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (smo)

JS-6

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

CV 14-7863 PA (JPRx)

Title

Michael Aaron McGrew v. County of San Luis Obispo, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 9, 2015

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS

The Court has received a “Request for Order of Dismissal of Federal Claims” filed by plaintiff
Michael Aaron McGrew (“Plaintiff”), in which Plaintiff requests that his federal claims be dismissed
without prejudice. In accordance with that Request, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims
without prejudice.
With the dismissal of the federal claims, there is no continuing basis for the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court has only supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims
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.” Executive 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, the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court therefore dismisses the remaining state law claims
without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), this Order acts to toll Plaintiff’s statute of
limitations on his state law claims for a period of thirty (30) days, unless state law provides for a longer
tolling period.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1