Arturo Solorzano v. City of Lynwood et al

Filing 72

ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDER TO DISMISS by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court, therefore, REMANDS the state law claims, having refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Additionally, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is MOOT. Made JS-6 (Attachments: #1 Remand letter) (bp)

JS-6

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

CV 15-6099 RGK (GJSx)

Title

Arturo Solorzano v. City of Lynwood et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 11, 2016

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED.STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDER TO DISMISS

On December 1, 2015, this Court issued two Orders dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) against all Defendants. One of the Orders stated, “Because the Court has dismissed
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, it also dismisses the pendant state law claims.” (Order Dismissing FAC at 12,
ECF No. 61.) This language has given rise to some confusion among the parties, prompting the Court to
issue this clarification.
The language recited above expresses this Court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims. The Court did not reach the
merits of the state law claims, and, therefore, the Order was not intended to constitute a dismissal of the
state law claims on the merits. The Court, therefore, REMANDS the state law claims, having refused to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

slw

Page 1 of 1