Rodney Dantzler v. Connie Harrison et al

Filing 32

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION 29 30 31 by Judge David O. Carter: The Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California,County of Orange. (See document for further information). (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 17-2271-DOC (DFMx)

Date: July 11, 2018

Title: RODNEY DANTZLER V. CONNIE HARRISON 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 REMANDING ACTION [29]
[30] [31]
On June 25, 2018, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff Rodney
Dantzler’s (“Plaintiff”) fifth through seventh claims for discrimination under the Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”), under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and under
California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
29). In that Order, the Court stated: “Because the claim for discrimination under the FHA
is the only federal claim and provides the only basis for subject matter jurisdiction, if
Plaintiff does not amend his fifth claim, the Court will remand the action to state court.”
Id. n.2.
On July 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice (Dkt. 30) stating that he decided not to
amend his Complaint, but requests that the Court exercise its discretion to retain
supplemental jurisdiction over this action; and that if the Court is inclined not to retain
supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff requests that the Court entertain briefing on the issue.
On July 11, 2018, Defendants Connie Harrison and David Harrison (collectively,
“Defendants”) filed Objections to Unauthorized Argument and Request to Remand
(“Objections and Request”) (Dkt. 31), arguing that: (1) Plaintiff’s request that the Court
not remand was not authorized by the Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss; and (2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-2271-DOC (DFMx)

Date: July 11, 2018
Page 2

pursuant to the Order and Plaintiff’s decision to not amend, the Court should remand the
first four causes of action to Orange County Superior Court. Objections and Request at
1–2.
Supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate when a state law claim derives from a
“common nucleus of operative fact” with a federal claim. United Mine Workers of
America v. Gibbs, 388 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). However, a district court may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a state law claim 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 has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons
for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because this Court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction (i.e. the Complaint’s fifth claim for discrimination under the FHA,
the only federal claim), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims. See id.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California,
County of Orange.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: djl