Nathaniel J Friedman v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 10 is GRANTED. Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC697824. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss 13 is MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Scott Winkleman's Motion to Dismiss 14 is MOOT. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (gk)
1
JS-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
18
) CASE NO. CV 18-3186-R
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
Plaintiff,
) MOTION TO REMAND
)
v.
)
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC.; SCOTT )
)
WINKLEMAN; and DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, filed on April 23, 2018, Defendant Real
19
Time Resolutions, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 30, 2018, and Defendant Scott
20
Winkleman’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 30, 2018. (Dkts. 10, 13, 14). On April 16, 2018,
21
Defendants filed a timely notice of removal. (Dkt. 1). On May 3, 2018, the Court granted
22
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his claim for violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
23
Act (“FDCPA”), Plaintiff’s sole federal claim. (Dkt. 17). Having been briefed by the parties, this
24
Court took the matter under submission on May 16, 2018.
12
13
14
15
16
17
25
NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN,
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court if the action could have originally
26
been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The burden of establishing federal subject
27
matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire
28
Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). There is a “strong presumption against removal
1
jurisdiction,” and courts must reject it “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
2
instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107
3
(9th Cir. 2010).
4
Although removability is based on the pleadings at the time of the removal, a court may
5
“decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed
6
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264
7
F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff alleged six state claims and one federal claim.
8
Defendants removed the action based on federal question jurisdiction. After removal, the Court
9
dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim for violation of the FDCPA. The Court declines to exercise
10
supplemental jurisdiction. See City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997)
11
(supplemental jurisdiction is “a doctrine of discretion”).
12
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. (Dkt. 10).
13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. Motion to
14
15
Dismiss is MOOT. (Dkt. 13).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Scott Winkleman’s Motion to Dismiss is
16
MOOT. (Dkt. 14).
17
Dated: June 19, 2018.
18
19
20
___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?