Kieran Kelleher v. City of Long Beach, et al
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC621311. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 17-1308 PA (PJWx)
Kieran Kelleher v. City of Long Beach, et al.
April 5, 2017
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
IN CHAMBERS – COURT ORDER
Pursuant to the discussion that occurred during the Scheduling Conference on April 3, 2017,
plaintiff has filed a Request for Dismissal seeking to dismiss without prejudice his federal claims.
Plaintiff seeks dismissal of his first through sixth claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and under City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 1204, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1989),
and Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L. Ed.
2d 611 (1978). These claims were the sole basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction asserted in
defendants’ Notice of Removal. 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 seeks dismissal of the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the first through sixth claims without prejudice and declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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. BC621311. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The further Scheduling Conference set
for April 10, 2017, is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?