Lovely-Trejo v. Winco Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/3/12 ORDERING this case is REMANDED to Shasta County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE T. LOVELY-TREJO, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 NO. CIV. S-09-1474 KJM-GGH WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 17 Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c), a court may decline to exercise supplemental 18 jurisdiction in a case where it has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original 19 jurisdiction. “A district court's decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing 20 every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad 21 Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 129 S.Ct. 1862, 1866 (2009); see also Arbaugh 22 v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a court grants a motion to dismiss for failure 23 to state a federal claim, the court generally retains discretion to exercise supplemental 24 jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over pendent state-law claims. . .”). 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 1 “When . . . the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for 2 resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without 3 prejudice.” Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994); Wren v. 4 Sletten Constr. Co., 654 F.2d 529, 536 (9th Cir. 1981) (“When the state issues apparently 5 predominate and all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the proper exercise of discretion 6 requires dismissal of the state claim[s].”) (per curiam). In Carnegie-Mellon Univeristy v. Cohill, 7 the United States Supreme Court stated “a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, 8 and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 9 comity in order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over a case brought in that court 10 involving pendent state-law claims. When the balance of these factors indicates that a case 11 properly belongs in state court, as when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit 12 in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise 13 of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). 14 This case was removed to federal court by defendants based on preemption of 15 plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with 16 respect to an unidentified oral contract. (See ECF 1 at 14-15.) Removal on this basis is dubious 17 in the first instance, given there is nothing within this cause of action as pled that asserts a 18 violation of a right provided by a collective bargaining agreement or requires the court to 19 consider and interpret a collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g., Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific 20 Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1058-60 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining two-step process for analyzing 21 preemption claims based on Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 22 § 185); Jacobs v. Mandalay Corp., 378 F. Ap'px. 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). In any event, 23 plaintiff has now conceded that her cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and 24 fair dealing should be summarily adjudicated against her. (ECF 22 at 6.) As such, the basis for 25 removal jurisdiction is extinguished. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 26 over the remaining claims, assuming jurisdiction was ever proper. 2 1 2 3 4 This case is REMANDED to Shasta County Superior Court and this case is CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 3, 2012. 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?