Michael J. Holmes v. Behavior Frontiers, LLC, et al

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC649094. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-1627 PA (JEMx)

Title

Michael Holmes v. Behavior Frontiers, LLC

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 18, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

V.R. Vallery
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS – COURT ORDER

On March 30, 2017, the Court granted Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Behavior
Frontiers, LLC (“Defendant”). In dismissing the Complaint filed by plaintiff Michael Holmes
(“Plaintiff”), who is appearing pro se, the Court stated that if Plaintiff wished to pursue his claim
in the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he filed his action and it was pending until Defendant
filed its Notice of Removal, Plaintiff could, no later than April 17, 2017, file a Notice of Intent to
Litigate California Claims in Superior Court in this Court. If Plaintiff filed such a Notice, the
Court would dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice, decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over his state law claims, and remand the action to Los Angeles Superior Court, so
that Plaintiff could pursue all of his state law claims in that court.
Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of Intent to Litigate California Claims in Superior Court in
which he states that he “intends to litigate the California Claim . . . in the Los Angeles Superior
Court.” Consistent with the Court’s March 30, 2017 Order, the Court therefore dismisses
Plaintiff’s federal claims for civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation
Act with prejudice.
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.”
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

CV 17-1627 PA (JEMx)

Date

Title

April 18, 2017

Michael Holmes v. Behavior Frontiers, LLC

Through the filing of the Notice of Intent to Litigate California Claims in Superior Court,
Plaintiff has consented to the dismissal with prejudice of the only claims over which the Court
has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the federal claims with prejudice and
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. BC649094.
The Court cautions Plaintiff that if he were to attempt to reassert his federal claims in the
state court proceedings—claims which this Court has dismissed with prejudice—Defendant may
attempt to again remove the action to this Court. As the Court stated in its March 30, 2017
Order, rather than relying on references to federal law, Plaintiff may wish to consider the
protections provided by the California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), which
provides many of the same protections against race and gender discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation that Plaintiff appears to have attempted to assert with his references to Title VII, the
ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2