Martinez v. Beard et al

Filing 89

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Court Should Continue to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Over the Remaining State Law Claims Against Defendants Songer, Fernando, and Sagasta signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/20/2017. Show Cause Response due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
BEARD, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00405-DAD-JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT
SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS SONGER, FERNANDO, AND
SAGASTA

Defendants.
(Doc. 88)

16

21-DAY DEADLINE

17
18

On March 6, 2017, an order issued adopting findings and recommendations on

19

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment1 to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under federal law

20

against Defendants Songer, Fernando, and Sagasta. (Doc. 88.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original

21
22

jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the

23

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under

24

Article III,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). “[O]nce judicial power exists under '

25

1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is

26

discretionary.” Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). “The district

27

1

28

Defendants’ motion did not raise the supplemental jurisdiction issue, so neither side addressed whether Plaintiff’s
claims under California law against Defendants Songer, Fernando, and Sagasta should be dismissed.

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . .
the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. '
1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013); Herman
Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2012) (even in the presence of cognizable federal
claim, district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over novel or complex
issue of state law of whether criminal statutes give rise to civil liability). The Supreme Court has
cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be
dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

10

Accordingly, it is the Court ORDERS:

11

1.

12

within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL either:
a.

show cause why the Court should continue to exercise supplemental

13

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendants Songer,

14

Fernando, and Sagasta, or

15

b.

16

secure and file an executed stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); and

17

2.

if Plaintiff files a response showing cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be

18

continued on these claims, Defendants may file an opposition to which Plaintiff

19

may reply under the timelines set forth in Local Rule 230(l).2

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:

April 20, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Briefs regarding supplemental jurisdiction, if filed, SHALL address whether “declining jurisdiction serves the
objectives of economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, and comity,” Trustees of Constr. Indus. & Laborers
Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2003).

2