Michael McLaurin v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al

Filing 22

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. Here, Plaintiff has dismissed the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff&# 039;s state law claims. The Court further exercises its discretion to remand the action. The Courtremands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC602327. Case remanded to Superior Court of California, Case number BC602327 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (See attached document for details.) (mailed 3/3/16) (lom)

JS-6

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

CV 16-827 PA (RAOx)

Title

Michael McLaurin v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 3, 2016

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 – COURT ORDER

Plaintiff Michael McLaurin (“Plaintiff”) has dismissed his first claim for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and those portions of his sixth claim alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
Plaintiff’s FCRA and FDCPA claims were the only basis for this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.” 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 claims 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. BC602327. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1