Chanthavong v. Aurora Loan Services, Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/19/2012 ORDERING that Plaintiff's state claims are REMANDED to the Superior Court of California in the County of Sacramento, from which this case was removed. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VANG CHANTHAVONG,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

14

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
INC. (MERS); CALIFORNIA WESTERN
RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, a
California Corporation, and DOES
1-100, inclusive,

15

Defendants.
________________________________

11
12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-02269-GEB-JFM
ORDER

16
17

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike certain

18

portions of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (ECF No. 36.)

19

However, since this case was removed from state court based on federal

20

question jurisdiction and only state claims now remain in the case, the

21

Court may sua sponte decide whether to continue exercising supplemental

22

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims.

23

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to

24

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim” if “all claims

25

over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. The

26

“discretion [whether] to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

27

over state . . . claims is triggered by the presence of one of the

28

conditions in § 1367(c), [and] is informed by the . . . values of

1

1

economy, convenience, fairness and comity” as delineated by the Supreme

2

Court in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726

3

(1966). “In a case in which all federal law claims are eliminated before

4

trial,

5

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”

6

Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir.

7

1990).

the

8

balance

Judicial

of

these

economy

factors

does

not

will

favor

generally

point

continuing

to

toward

exercise

9

supplemental jurisdiction since none of the state claims have been

10

addressed on the merits. See Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 337, 338 (9th

11

Cir. 1986) (“[T]he district court, of course, has the discretion to

12

determine whether its investment of judicial energy justifies retention

13

of jurisdiction or if it should more properly dismiss the claims without

14

prejudice.”) (citation omitted). Nor do the comity and fairness factors

15

weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction since “[n]eedless

16

decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and

17

to

18

surer-footed

19

Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims are remanded to the Superior Court

20

of California in the County of Sacramento, from which this case was

21

removed.

22

Dated:

promote

justice
reading

between
of

the

parties,

applicable

law.”

by

procuring

Gibbs,

383

U.S.

January 19, 2012

23
24
25

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2

for

them
at

a

726.