Serene Cottini-Guillot v. Baldwin Park Unified School District et al

Filing 17

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson, case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC631047. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 16-7025 PA (GJSx)

Title

Serene Cottini-Guillot v. Baldwin Park Unified School District, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

December 15, 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 Serene Cottini-Guillot (“Plaintiff”) has dismissed her claim brought under to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was 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 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. BC631047. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The
further scheduling conference calendared for December 19, 2016, is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1