Matthew P. Malouf et al v. Ayman G. Haddadin et al

Filing 22

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING AS UNOPPOSED PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND 19 by Judge David O. Carter: Based on those factors, the Court agrees the case should be remanded. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS AS UNOPPOSED Plaintiffs Motion and REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, case number 30-2017-00935962. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (es)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1567-DOC (DFMx)

Date: October 25, 2017

Title: MATTHEW P. MALOUF ET AL. V. AYMAN G. HADDADIN ET AL.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Deborah Lewman
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING AS
UNOPPOSED PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND [19]
On September 8, 2017, Defendants Alice Haddadin, Franco Olmedo, Theresa
Messersmith, and Ayman G. Haddadin (collectively “Defendants”) removed the abovecaptioned case to this Court. Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1). On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff
Matthew P. Malouf (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Remand Case to Superior Court of
Orange County (“Motion”) (Dkt. 19). On October 23, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of
Non-Opposition (Dk. 21).
Plaintiff points out that while the original Complaint alleged nine causes of action,
including civil RICO under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), the First Amended Complaint (Dkt.
15) no longer raises any question of federal law and there is no basis for federal or
diversity jurisdiction. Mot. at 1. Therefore, the only remaining basis for subject matter
jurisdiction is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See id.
A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “all claims over which
it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed from the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);
see Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff
argues that the well-settled factors that guide the Court’s discretionary exercise of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1567-DOC (DFMx)

Date: October 25, 2017
Page 2

supplemental jurisdiction: “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” weigh heavily
in favor of remanding to state court. Mot. at 1; see Holly D. v. California Inst. of Tech.,
339 F.3d 1158, 1181 n.28 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Acri v. Varian Associates, 114 F.3d
999, 1001 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc)).
Based on those factors, the Court agrees the case should be remanded.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS AS UNOPPOSED Plaintiff’s Motion and REMANDS
this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, case number 30-201700935962.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: djl